|
Financing
for Development PrepCom
Wednesday, 16th
of January, 2002
Morning Session 10:00 – 1:00 pm
Chapter 3 Trade
Paragraph 23
EU -
Like the paragraph, don’t disagree with it, but would like
to see explicit reference to the Doha development agenda included in the
last sentence of the paragraph
Canada – will
be submitting suggestions in writing
US – wants
to make the text consistent with Doha, could’ve accepted it as is.
Yet, thinks it is important to use phrase such as
“system that embodies those characteristics is required”, as
it has less of a negative connotation.
Why does G77 want to exclude “Welcome the WTO’s
decision..”? Would like
to keep it.
Ukraine - Agree
with US, reference to Doha agreements essential.
Would like to add to the third sentence, and use exact wording
from Doha
Dominican Republic
– Would like reference to WTO launching new trade agenda, support the
introduction, add “transition” as well as “developing” countries
Honduras
– support the position of G77, reference to Doha okay, but some pending
issues from Uruguay round. Would
like to move onto next stage, too many trade barriers, want a
non-discriminating way to have trade worldwide—fundamental aspect to
move forward on. Plan set
up by Fox—to give greater importance to international trade agreements,
signed agreements with Mexico, would like to do the same with US and
Mexico.
NGO Caucus –
The phrase “Freer trade would substantially stimulate development
worldwide…” isn’t true. When richer countries open markets
to poorer ones it is, but when it is visa versa. Then there are
problems such as de-industrialization, etc. Propose that the first
line be changed to be more accurate, “Equitable, sustainable, and
gender sensitive…” In the second line, the commitment should
be towards equitable and sustainable development. The third line,
agree with G77 to change because its not accurate. The term “new
round” as controversial (doesn’t appear in the Doha meeting), what
does “new round” mean? Should instead take text from Doha
agreement.
Turkey – Problem
with the classification of countries according to development level.
Only industrial
and developing countries have been identified, but according to the WTO
there are 3 levels of classification: industrial/developed, developing
and least developed.
Paragraph 24
Venezuela (on
behalf of G77 & China) – the paragraph contains important
ideas but wants to make clarifications and distinctions.
Would like to add adjectives to give greater force to ideas.
Want a separate paragraph in line with comments in 24, but in
reference to countries with smallest economies.
After paragraph 24, would like 2 new paragraphs following.
The first would be based on the ideas if 24, developing, “as
well as countries with economies in transition.” In
the second sentence of 24, would like to change the word
“fundamental” to “meaningful.”
In the third sentence add comment on trade barriers.
For the last sentence, would like to clarify by adding “could
boost,” and “could play an important role in new employment.”
A new paragraph would include information on a global fully
funded programs to assist developing countries, especially Africa.
The last paragraph would deal with LDCs and wanting to improve
their position in trade through WTO programs of work agreed upon in
Doha.
EU – There
are merit in the ideas of the paragraph, but will give written version
of suggestions. The last
sentence is problematic because “active promotion of exports” could
be a reference to subsidies, it should be replaced by “increased
access to foreign markets…” Also
thinks there should be another reference to sustainable development in
the paragraph which could recall that trade liberalization is necessary
but not enough for sustainable development, there also needs to be in
conjunction with trade liberalization environmental protection, social
protection, sound economic policy, etc.
Would like to add the idea that exports and imports are important
contributions to development. Would like to add comment on poverty reduction papers, and be
careful to respect the spirit of what was agreed upon at Doha.
Belarus – In
the first sentence, would like to downplay the word “must.”
Last sentence should be expanded to include now just employment
but international trade as well.
Turkey – Comments
on the second sentence’s reference to trade liberalization.
In accord with general idea, but trade liberalization doesn’t
cover the approach we should be taking.
Would like to add “among other relevant policy instruments.”
Azerbaijan
– Would like to make paragraph more precise; agrees with Belarus that
the word “must” in the first sentence is too much, impolite—change
to “need.” Would also
like to change order of sentences, and put the second and third before
the first.
US – In
the first line, trade isn’t the most important source of financing,
replace with “international source.”
In the last sentence, would like to replace “active promotion
of exports” with “active promotion of trade” to get away from the
idea of subsidies, and would like to include exports and imports.
On G77’s comments, developing countries being provided with
technical assistance dilutes nation’s responsibility, we have later
paragraphs to discuss technical assistance.
Mexico – Thinks
that the comments in the paragraph could be weightier if we began with
the second sentence on trade liberalization and included a reference to
the role of trade to creating greater resources for combating poverty.
Thailand – Supports
comments of G77 and China; trade liberalization isn’t good enough on
its own for quality growth—it has to be supported.
Would like to add the word “reform” as in “process of
reform and trade.”
Japan – Wants
the wording to be consistent with Doha agreements. The promotion of trade is important, however, doesn’t want
to take up issues of WTO in FfD meetings.
Would like to see reference to trade related capacity building,
wants to see concrete evidence of technical assistance, add sentence at
the end that includes on how importance
of trade related capacity building should be emphasized and mainstreamed
and extended to developing countries.
Honduras – International
trade is a means, not an objective.
Endorses EU to achieve sustainable development, supports G77
proposal. Would like to add
development objectives.
Dominican Republic
– Support G77.
Agree that “must” in first sentence too strong.
Wants to link paragraph to Millennium Objectives.
Russian Federation
– Support Belarus
and Azerbaijan that it isn’t good to imply obligation with the word
“must”, should instead frame it as a recommendation.
Agree with Japan in that we need to use terminology that we have
been using, as this is an UN conference, and now use WTO terminology.
International Chamber
of Commerce – Would
like to address issues of linkage, the relationship between trade and
FfD. Linkage between
promotion of foreign direct investment and trade facilitation.
Foreign direct investment will only take place in an enabling
environment. Linkage should
be added to the paragraph. In
order to attract foreign direct investment, developing countries need to
facilitate trade practices.
Labor Caucus – There
should be a reference to informal economy.
In the last sentence add, “boost equitable economic growth,
create quality employment, solid national production system.”
Paragraph 25
Venezuela – Importance
of the solidarity of the group. Any
idea that implies breakdown of different compartments isn’t true
politically. In terms of
paragraph 25, the ideas are already presented in 24 and should therefore
be eliminated.
EU – Wants
to propose the deletion of the word “only” in the first sentence, to
make it more positive. Problems
with the last part of the paragraph—it addresses Doha issues but gives
an unbalanced view and doesn’t represent consensus interest.
“Subsidies” too broad and too narrow.
“Eliminated” not acceptable.
US - Likes
the paragraph as drafted
Japan – Isn’t
necessary to compare negative effects of trade barriers in developing
countries and aid flows. Would
like to simplify the second sentence.
Republic of Korea –
Agree with EU and
Japan that paragraph 25 needs to be revised—its gone too far.
The second sentence should be simplified—“Trade…measures
must be reduced or as needed eliminated.”
Australia – Likes
the paragraph, would like to keep it or the sentiments reflected within
it.
NGO rep – Didn’t
get a chance to comment on 24—First sentence: trade can take away from
financing as well, identifying fallout of trace, draining away funding
for sustainable development. A
last line should be added to say that there can be positive and negative
effects of export liberalization. In
terms of paragraph 25, would like a reference to imbalances in the trade
system. Wants to emphasize
that liberalization isn’t everything and that developed countries
should improve liberalization.
Paragraph 26
Venezuela – Would
like to add some additions to the bullets.
First bullet: “…measures, tariff and non-tariff and technical
measures…developing countries, especially the least developed
countries with economies in transition to the WTO.”
The second bullet: Multilateral rules must provide for greater
trade. “Liberalized trade
in all products, in particular agricultural…provisions for developing
countries in trade agreements.” In
the last bullet, want to retain central idea.
Would like : “…recognition of the need for protection of
trade knowledge… innovate, and to build the capacity of indigenous
technology…” “WTO
members…to fulfill their obligations…adopted at the negotiations.”
(Wants to refer not only to Doha, but at what took place before.)
EU – The
text gives the impression that only certain issues are important to
development, the language used isn’t in conformity with Doha’s
outcome, would like to suggest a reference to Doha and commitments made
without references to specific issues.
“To ensure…goals we will faithfully implement the Doha
agenda.”
Russian
Federation – Just
editorial proposals—place “non-discriminatory” at the end of the
paragraph, instead of after “facilitate.”
Thailand – Support
G77. But in 3rd
bullet, would want “traditional knowledge and folklore,” as well as
a reference to geographical indicators.
US – Going
to provide long list of suggestions in writing. Agrees with G77 – could accept an expanded list that they
proposed or eliminate the reference to antidumping measure.
Would like to add “non-discriminatory and commercial terms.”
Also at the end of first bullet, include transition countries
that have applied for WTO membership.
Second bullet: eliminate export, and want s to clarify
“accelerate the elimination of trade barriers of all countries,” not
just developing countries. Would
go further and say “reduce or eliminate tariff peaks.”
Would want to completely redo bullet three.
Promote Trips agreement and its flexibility in addressing health
needs of developing countries. Like
the EU’s suggestion to eliminate all this for one sentence.
Japan – Language
should be in line with the wording of the ministerial declaration of the
WTO, will submit amendments in writing.
Agree with the EU.
Turkey – Reference
be made to Doha ministerial declaration,
Four points redefined or reworded.
“Strengthen the rules and disciplines” to “Clarify and
improve,” in the 2nd bullet, “export subsidies” to
“all forms of subsidies,” “production subsidies” to “trade
distorting domestic supports,” “elimination of tariffs” to
“reduction of tariffs with a view
of phasing out…”
Korea – Needs
and interests of developing countries should be addressed
Mexico – Wants
to reflect agreements made at Doha.
Subsidies cause distortions in international markets, in addition
to reduced tariff peaks, wants a reference to reduction or elimination.
In the last bullet, instead of “respecting,” “reporting.”
Australia – Bullet
3: “providing incentives to innovate,” as first sentence.
Labor Caucus – wants
to include specific reference to respect for migrant worker’s rights
under employment.
NGO rep – First
sentence on implementation-recognition that developing countries have
been trying to get WTO to resolve implementation.
Instead of “secure full implementation,” “resolve problems
of implementation of developing countries in WTO effectively and rapidly”
Add consider reforming Trips agreement, rights of countries to take
measures to protect public health.
Add fourth bullet point, to ensure measures to protect livelihood
for farmers, especially women, measures that promote jobs…
Paragraph 27
Venezuela – add
“give support to protect the projects”
EU - Fine
with the paragraph as is.
Poland – Add
two words in last sentence…”integration among developing and
transition countries.”
Russian
Federation – Wants to extend 27 to transition countries also
Azerbaijan – supports
Russian Federation in extending to transition countries, delete
“sub-regional” in 2nd sentence
US – We
shouldn’t decide on priorities for institutions, rephrase to say that
they are “invited” to give priority
Australia – Concerned
that the wording promotes regional trading blocks, agrees with the US.
Thinks there should be complete deletion of paragraph.
Mexico – to
clarify 27, it should refer to regional and sub-regional free trade
agreements should support, rather than construct a “global” trading
system, should use “world” trading system, to make sure we’re
clearly talking about the WTO.
Paragraph 28
Venezuela – Add
“immediate steps to benefit developing countries, especially Africa…”
EU – There
is a problem in that the paragraph confuses issue of market access for
least developed countries vs other developing countries—language
should be modified to cover this. Text
is also unclear as to small island, land locked, transit countries.
Japan – Comment
on first part of paragraph: reference is made to access of developing
country exports in general, which is confusing.
Russian
Federation – Would
like to extend provisions of 28 to transition countries, we shouldn’t
anticipate the outcome of negotiations.
US – Support
the EU, LCD treatment should be separate in this document.
Eliminate last two words of paragraph.
Ukraine – Add
“We stress the need to speed up our efforts…”
NGO Women’s
Caucus – comment
on New Partnership for Africa’s Development: replace with
“Africa’s development”
Paragraph 29
Venezuela
– Wants to retain central ideas, should include some new
ideas. “…In order to
improve their terms of trade and sustain their balance of payment.” Add fully funded programs for technical assistance to
developing countries, make in line with capacity building.
EU
– Aim
for concrete connection to capacity building and technical assistance,
29 isn’t specific or ambitious enough.
Add reference to regulatory assistance, overlap with content of
31, perhaps should merge the two.
Time
ran out to finish paragraphs
|