- home
- the wto
- ministerials
- canc鷑 2003
- 12 september summary
Day 3: 慒acilitators?start work on new draft declaration
As the conference抯 half-way point passed, the chairperson抯 揻acilitators?wrapped up their first round of consultations and began drafting a new ministerial declaration.
Meanwhile on the ceremonial side, Cambodia and Nepal signed their membership packages a day after ministers agreed them ?the two new members will formally join the WTO 30 days after they have ratified the agreements and informed the WTO.
> List of facilitators and their tasks
in yesterday抯 report
> For explanations of the following
issues see the briefing notes
NOTE:
THIS BRIEFING NOTE IS DESIGNED TO HELP JOURNALISTS AND THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CANC贜 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE. WHILE
EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ENSURE THE CONTENTS ARE ACCURATE, IT
DOES NOT PREJUDICE MEMBER GOVERNMENTS' POSITIONS.
Meeting
summaries:
> 10 September
> 11 September
> 13 September
> 14 September
Draft declaration:
Draft Canc鷑 Declaration, as forwarded by P閞ez del Castillo and
Supachai to ministers:
text and
covering
letter.
Revised draft Ministerial declaration
as presented by Chairperson Luis Ernesto Derbez on the fourth day of
the Canc鷑 Ministerial Conference.
Other WTO Ministerials:
>
Doha
9?4 Nov. 2001
>
Seattle
30 Nov? Dec 1999
> Geneva 18 & 20 May 1998
>
Singapore 9?3 Dec. 1996
Chairperson and Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez opened this second informal heads of delegation meeting, stressing that these meetings are the core of the negotiations. All the facilitators had held consultations the previous day, he said, also stressing that ultimately decisions can only be taken by the full membership.
He said the ministers are now at the midpoint of the conference and that much good work had been done. Signs of progress are emerging, but a number of difficult issues remain where governments were still far apart, he said.
Ministers need to work together urgently to find solutions that all governments can live with. No text could ever fully satisfy all the objectives of all WTO members ?this is the nature of compromise, he said.
Mr Derbez stressed that the Canc鷑 Ministerial Conference is not launching or concluding a round, but rather providing the necessary framework and political guidance to allow Geneva negotiators to continue their work towards completion of the round by 1 January 2005.
He will convene another heads of delegation meeting later today.
He then asked the facilitators to report on their consultations. The
reports were similar to the ones the facilitators made to their groups
the previous day (see yesterday抯 report).
> For explanations of the following issues see the briefing notes
The cotton initiative.
Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi reported that he held a meeting
with the countries that had expressed an interest on this. He focused on
the proponents of the cotton initiative and the countries identified as
subsidizers.
They agreed that the problem needs to be solved, but some argued that a
narrow focus on cotton subsidies alone would not necessarily lead to a
medium or long term development of the cotton industry in West Africa.
Instead, an integrated approach covering all measures affecting cotton
producers would offer a more satisfactory solution, Dr Supachai said.
On the question of providing transition financing, some countries said
that they were studying the idea but it should be considered only after
the trade-related elements of any initiative were resolved.
One member said that the cotton initiative should not detract from the
overall effort for substantial reforms in agriculture, Dr Supachai
reported.
Agriculture. Facilitator George
Yeo Yong-Bon reported on the previous day抯 meetings. Today抯 afternoon
meeting open to all members would be the last opportunity for members to
suggest creative ways to help bridge the gaps. Failing that he would
have to make a best guess, so it would be better to obtain guidance from
members, Mr Yeo said.
Non-agricultural market access.
Facilitator Henry Tang Ying-yen reported some progress but all members
will need to show some flexibility. Differences remain on the formula
for tariff reductions (for more or less ambitious reductions) and on
sectoral initiatives (whether commitments to eliminate tariffs on all
products in a sector should be made by all countries, or whether
countries could volunteer to participate). He said he would continue
consultations and call open-ended (i.e. open to all members) meetings
periodically.
Other issues. Facilitator Clement
Rohee reported that his open-ended meeting the previous day focused
largely on environment (including eco-labelling) and intellectual
property (TRIPS), particularly the register for wines and spirits
geographical indications, but also the question of non-violation.
On the question of the wines and spirits register the key questions are:
the deadline for these negotiations and whether ministers should provide
guidance on substantive matters. On non-violation, the main question is
the end-date for the moratorium on bringing non-violation complaints to
the WTO.
Singapore issues.
Facilitator Pierre Pettigrew described three positions in his
group抯 meeting the previous day:
- A substantial number of countries said that there was no explicit consensus on any of the four issues and that they should be referred back to the Working Groups in Geneva.
- A second group wants to launch negotiations on all four issues in Canc鷑. Some in this group say that the Doha Declaration already mandates the launch of negotiations here in Canc鷑.
- A number of countries are prepared to explore possible solutions between these two options.
Mr Tang urged ministers to explore a range of alternatives in order to
find compromise and avoid deadlock. Another open-ended meeting would be
held in the afternoon.
Development. Facilitator Mukhisa
Kituyi reported on the previous day抯 meeting. On one key implementation
issue ?proposals to extend the higher level of protection for
geographical indications beyond wines and spirits ?he said delegations
are 搑eligiously?sticking to their opposing positions. It is important
to avoid this issue dominating the discussion and blocking other issues.
Working group meetings
back
to top
Thursday 11 September 2003 continued from
yesterday抯 report
Non-agricultural market access (NAMA)
There was very little change, if any, from positions held in Geneva. But
Facilitator Henry Tang Ying-yen, Hong Kong China抯 financial secretary,
said the negotiation has moved beyond the Geneva process. It would be
unrealistic to continue to look for a perfect text and that striking a
balance would be 搗ery difficult indeed? he said.
At the end of the meeting he summarized his task as 揗ission
Impossible? He wanted to concentrate the discussion on the two main
problems: paragraphs 3 (the definition of a formula, whether linear on
non-linear) and 6 (a voluntary or mandatory approach to the sectoral
elimination of tariffs). But many countries said they also have problems with
other parts of the text and many also repeated their view that this
subject is linked to the negotiation on agriculture, despite the
facilitator抯 suggestion that non-agricultural market access should be
considered on its own merit.
One member proposed to leave the most contentious issues aside and deal
with them in Geneva and another regretted members?increasingly limited
ambition.
Developing countries strongly opposed harmonizing their tariffs (i.e.
making considerably steeper cuts on higher tariffs to narrow the gap
between high and low tariffs). They said members should respect the Doha
mandate on the special and differential treatment and the provisions
allowing developing countries to make smaller reductions, to apply a
different coefficient in tariff reduction formulas, and to be allowed to
choose whether to join a sectoral initiative (duty free imports of all
products within a sector).
Opposing views were heard on how to treat countries that recently joined
the WTO.
Facilitator Tang said he would consult and meet in small groups to try
to move the negotiations forward.
Working group meetings
back
to top
Friday 12 September 2003
慡ingapore?Issues
(These are: trade and investment, trade and competition policy,
transparency in government procurement, trade facilitation.)
Group meeting 1:00-2:00 pm
Facilitator Pierre S Pettigrew welcomed efforts to move the discussions
forward in terms of two major developing countries calling for the
搖nbundling?of the four Singapore issues. These countries indicated
possible flexibility in this area subject to progress being made in the
other Doha issues.
Several countries, including both developed and developing, supported
launching negotiations on trade facilitation and transparency in
government procurement, and referring back to Geneva the issues on
investment and on competition policy.
A number of developing countries maintained their opposition to the
launching of negotiations, stressing that there was no explicit
consensus to do this as called for in the Doha Declaration.
Two former transition economies supported starting negotiations in this
area, which they said is mandated by the Doha Declaration.
Closing the meeting, Minister Pettigrew said he would continue to seek
common ground in intensive consultations to be conducted in various
formats, including bilaterals and others.
Development
Group meeting 3:30-4:30pm
While consensus seems to be emerging on wording on issues concerning
least-developed countries, small economies and commodities, differences
remain on the group of subjects under the heading of implementation.
A wide gap still exists between those countries who want negotiations on
the extension of the higher level of protection for geographical
indications beyond wines and spirits and those who do not believe it is
an implementation issue.
Several countries, both developed and developing, favour a new
negotiating group on implementation issues but it remains unclear if
that would include also the issue of geographical indications.
On special and differential treatment, many countries favour
揾arvesting?the 24 agreed provisions while continuing to try to improve
that package. In general, members want ministers to give guidance on the
way forward. Some countries would like a new deadline, possibly March
2004.
Facilitator Mukhisa Kitayu (Kenya) is currently working on a new text
for the development paragraphs. He will submit the new text to the
Minsiterial Conference chairperson tonight.
Agriculture
Group meeting 4:00?:30 pm
Facilitator George Yeo (Singapore) said that in consultations since this
morning he has seen substantial flexibility, giving him greater
confidence that his draft text will be more acceptable. This meeting
will be the last opportunity for members to offer guidance on bridging
gaps, he repeated. Tonight he will submit a text to conference
chairperson Luis Ernesto Derbez, and he understands that the chair will
submit a new text tomorrow that will include agriculture.
Mr Yeo then invited members to comment, asking them to be 搒hort and
sharp? and not to repeat their known positions.
However, members seemed to prefer to use this last meeting before a text
is drafted to underscore what the points they badly want to see in the
text, meaning that there was a considerable amount of repetition.
The main new item was a new 揷onsolidated?position paper from the
African Union, the ACP group (African, Caribbean and Pacific, i.e.
former European colonies enjoying preferences on the EU market), and the
least-developed countries.
They call for a framework (and subsequent modalities) that is 揵alanced?
between the three pillars, in general including special treatment for
developing countries ?such as self-selection for 搒pecial products?
use of a special safeguard mechanism for developing countries, and the
preservation of preferences. On market access, the paper calls for a
formula that tackles high tariffs, tariff peaks, and tariff escalation.
The blended approach would fail to tackle these because it would allow
developed countries to put products with high tariffs in the flexible
搃mport sensitive?category, this group say. Therefore developed
countries?tariff reductions and other market access commitments should
be considerably more substantial than for developing countries. Similar
proposals are made in domestic support and export subsidies.
Some members of the Group of 21 (G-21) welcomed the text as being
similar to theirs.
A number of ACP banana producers called for this sector to be addressed
specifically in the agriculture negotiations. Some Latin American
producers warned against raising this in the negotiations.
Other than that, statements largely repeated existing positions.
揑 will now withdraw to prepare my text,?facilitator Yeo concluded. 揑
hope what I produce will be to your satisfaction.?/p>
Other issues
Group meeting 8:00?:00 pm
(See below)
Heads of delegations 2
back
to top
9:45?0:00 pm
The meeting began with reports from facilitators on their latest
consultations:
The cotton initiative.
Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi said he had held further
negotiations with countries involved in this subject. All were helpful
in paying attention to the search for a solution to the problem, he
said. Dr Supachai said he detected a convergence of opinion that the
best way to seek a solution is to do so within the WTO抯 ambit, i.e.
trade. While not neglecting the compensation side of the proposal, the
members feel that this should be linked to international organizations
that cooperate on assistance, he said, and a decision cannot be made
now. Additionally, members said the issue as a whole should be linked to
the ambitions of the agriculture negotiations, he reported.
Agriculture. Facilitator George
Yeo Yong-Bon reported good progress, with all members making an effort
to reach out and bridge the gaps. This has made it easier to draft a
text, he said. Mr Yeo said he would continue drafting and would submit
the text to chairperson Derbez later in the evening.
Development. Facilitator Mukhisa
Kituyi also said that some gaps had been bridged, making it easier to
draft a text, which he had submitted to chairperson Derbez at 8:20.
Singapore issues.
Facilitator Pierre Pettigrew said it is clear that opinions remain polarized, and it is
difficult to see the way forward. However, he does have some ideas and
will put them on paper to deliver to the chairperson in 搕he next few
hours?
Other issues. Facilitator Clement
Rohee listed areas where members seem closer to consensus: on inviting
multilateral environmental agencies to be observers in the Trade and
Environment Committee, on non-violation cases in intellectual property
(TRIPS), and on Paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration (patenting of
animals and plants (TRIPS paragraph 27.3(b)), the Convention on
Biological Diversity and traditional knowledge).
More difficult are: the geographical indications register for wines and
spirits (positions are largely unchanged, and therefore the simplest
solution would be to set a date for completing the negotiations, perhaps
the same as for modalities in agriculture and non-agricultural market
access); eco-labelling; and some services issues (dates for revised
offers, and modalities for least-developed countries?participation in
the negotiations).
Mr Rohee called for political support from ministers.
Non-agricultural market access.
Facilitator Henry Tang Ying-yen said he had floated drafts among
different groups and hoped to submit possible improvements very soon. He
urged ministers to be flexible.
Chair抯 summing up. The
chairperson reminded ministers that they only have 42 hours left before
the closing session. The time has come to change gears, because work has
been taken as far as it can in its present form, he said.
Mr Derbez said he would put together the draft text and circulate it in
all three WTO languages by lunchtime the following day. He would convene
the heads of delegations meeting to introduce the new text and suspend
the meeting to allow delegations to study it individually and in groups.
The meeting would resume in the afternoon, he said.
The facilitators?groups will be 揻olded?into a single process under
the chair, and he and the Director-General will hold consultations, he
said. They will report back to heads of delegations to finalize the
text, final decisions only being taken by the full membership, he
stressed. All of this is aimed at enabling consensus among all members,
搚ou, I, us?