|
The Eighth WTO Ministerial Conference was expected to break new ground in the completion of the Doha Round. As the ministerial consultations end today, are you seeing the WTO closer to its goal of instituting a single rule-based, global multilateral trading system involving all member countries? Do you expect to live to see that day?
It has to be appreciated that there was a lot of pessimism to holding the Eighth Ministerial Conference (MC 8) of the ministers of trade in Geneva. This was owing to the fact that there were no tangible agreed issues that could be submitted to MC 8 for ministers to decide on following protracted debates in almost all areas of negotiations in the WTO including Agriculture, Non-Agricultural Market Access, Services, Rules, etc. It is therefore not true to suggest that the Eighth Ministerial Conference was expected to break new ground in the completion of the Doha Round. However, with the realization that the Doha Round was in an impasse, all negotiators agreed to work extra hard to produce an outcome that would justify the ministerial taking place instead of MC 8 taking place every two years just as a legal requirement.
Why is that many LDCs, including Tanzania, do not take part in the parallel negotiations on the Government Procurement Agreement. They also seem opposed to the inclusion of transparency aspects in the GPA. What is the cause of this attitude? The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) under the WTO is a plurilateral one. It establishes a framework of rights and obligations for government procurement among the WTO members that have signed it. The GPA was first concluded in 1979 under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and entered into force on January 1, 1996. Under the Agreement, the signatories have agreed that countries will be treated no less favourably than domestic suppliers in procurement covered by the Agreement. To ensure this is done their laws, regulations and procedures relating to government procurement will be transparent and fair.
You will appreciate that the fear of many developing countries including LDCs lies in the fact that the Agreement is not only confined to transparency in procurement but more importantly market access issues as poorer countries cannot compete with advanced economies which produce goods and services more competitively. This in turn will mean that protection of local industries and service providers will be impossible in developing countries, where supply-side constraints make production costs higher and uncompetitive. Many governments in the developing world have no problem reviewing their laws on procurement. It is in this light that in Tanzania passed the 2004 Procurement Act to ensure a transparent procurement process.
During the process leading to MC 8, the Director General of WTO used the GPA as an example of plurilateral agreements that were eventually brought to MC 8. Several delegations warned of possible fragmentation of the multilateral trade system (MTS), which was agreed in the Hong Kong Ministerial (conference) of 2005, that plurilaterals are voluntary and not binding.
Poor protection of intellectual property is a major main hindrance to innovation in Least Developed Countries. As negotiations on traditional knowledge and geographical indications continue in relation to the TRIPS Agreement at WTO consultations, how do the LDCs stand to benefit from the stated two intellectual rights? Are the LDCs really meeting the minimum standards of IP protection as stipulated in the Agreement?
It is true that Geographical Indications (GIs) are a type of Intellectual Property (IP). They are forms of identification which identify a product as originating in a region or locality in a country. For a GI product, its reputation for quality or authenticity is intimately linked to its geographical origin. GIs are covered under Articles 22 to 24 of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.
The TRIPS Agreement reserves the more effective protection of Article 23 TRIPS Agreement to GIs for wines and spirits. It does not prohibit the usurpation and illegitimate use of GIs such as “Geneva Watch in Hong Kong China”, “Ceylon Tea in Malaysia” and “Kilimanjaro Coffee in Kenya”. Under the present level of protection in Article 22 of TRIPS Agreement it is sufficient to indicate on a product, even if in small print or at the back, its true origin in order for such illegitimate use of a GI said not to be misleading and therefore permissible. Thus producers of rice, coffee, cheese, watches, carpets etc, are clearly discriminated against.
The purpose of the extension of the protection of Article 23 TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and spirits is to confer this more effective TRIPS level of protection to GIs of all products and thus put all producers on an equal footing. However, it is each country that has the responsibility to do so.
The accession of Russia has been hailed as one of the major events of the Eighth Ministerial Conference. Given Russia’s importance in world affairs, what shall we possibly see in the coming future in relation to trade volume between Russia and Africa?
The accession of the Russian Federation, after eighteen years of negotiations, has been hailed as one of the major events of MC 8. Due to the difficult process of accession for a long time, the LDCs have called for the easing of the accession process, including review of the 2002 Guidelines on Accessions. While the entry of the Russian Federation to the WTO is a welcome development, it will have both positive and negative consequences.
The positives include increased goods and services into the global market; a moderating voice to counter other views of the world’s industrialized economies, etc. The negatives include the fact that the Russian Federation, owing to its geographical size, has the potential of producing a bigger volume of products and services including from agriculture, livestock and tourism services. Russia will therefore offer a bigger challenge to African small states with low volume of production of goods and services.
Cotton subsidies in rich countries have caused market damage to cotton producers in LDCs and countries like Tanzania. Since 2003 when the issue was raised by some African countries, WTO member countries have failed to agree on a solution. As a long serving ambassador at the WTO, what do you think should be done by African countries to overcome this hurdle?
Cotton subsidies in rich countries are responsible for the plight of many African cotton farmers, who do not enjoy any similar subsidies which were removed during liberalization programme, advocated by none other than the western economies themselves. For example, the United States of America provides an average of USD 3 billion each year to 28,000 of its cotton growers. This translates to the equivalent of one third of the world market share of cotton and cotton products.
The trade-distorting subsidies have created havoc to African farmers who have to survive on US $ 1.25 a day. The situation is even worse in the C4 Countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali), which are overly dependent on cotton as their only cash crop and is the mainstay of their economies. Since 2003, when the issue was raised and again in the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial in which a decision was reached to find a lasting solution on cotton ambitiously expeditiously and specifically, no concrete development has been attained.
This is due to the fact that in the US, the cotton lobby is very strong for any politician to act against cotton growers or exporters’ interests. In other countries like China and India, cutting down subsidies has also proven difficult because to them this threatens their farmers’ livelihoods as many commit suicides on account of the heavy burden of loans. This explains why conclusion of the cotton issue remains elusive.
|
