UK PARLIAMENT HEARS WTO's MOORE (PART II)
The UK House of Commons International Development Select Committee is holding an inquiry titled, "After Seattle: The WTO and Developing Countries." The Committee's December 1999 terms of reference identify specific areas of inquiry: WTO institutional reform, implementation of existing agreements, the potential for duty free LDC access, the impact of TRIMS and TRIPS on developing countries, and the implications of the agriculture and services negotiations for developing countries.
On March 7, the Committee received the oral evidence of WTO Director General Moore. Moore's session with the committee lasted just over an hour and forty-five minutes. His key message was that, had a round been launched in Seattle, the greatest beneficiaries would have been developing countries. The Seattle failure meant the major loser was the developing world.
In this concluding review of the testimony, Moore's remarks on developing country issues are highlighted: market access, capacity building and technical assistance, implementation and lapsing agreements, the dispute settlement system, and Uruguay Round benefits for developing countries.
Market Access
Moore observed that efforts were underway, but conceded it was not an easy path. Access for agriculture and textiles could not be resolved by Easter, but he thought WTO would make progress on these "sticking points." He pleaded for developed countries to show a generous attitude toward access and assistance.
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building
WTO's core technical assistance budget is US$500,000. Contributions by EU Development Ministers have driven it to US$10 million. Moore is seeking another $10 million, which he claimed could be spent effectively. The pressing need for more financial resources was dramatized by the assertion that only 1 in 5 requests for seminars are answered by WTO. "We are not doing a good enough job," said Moore. WTO is unable to respond to requests from developing countries for training assistance. Currently, China receives one training session every two years. Uh oh.
The need appears deep. When asked how much difference an additional £20 million would make, Moore said WTO would be able to double its response rate to 2 in 5 requests for assistance.
He noted that the LDC Integrated Framework was a source of frustration. Roundtables are held, reports are written, "but nothing happens." He indicated he would have to take a look at it himself and see what could be done to energise the instrument.
Implementation and Lapsing Agreements
Noting it was a big issue at Seattle, Moore claimed implementation issues had consumed the largest amount of time in the lead up to Seattle, even more than agriculture.
On lapsed agreements, for the short term Moore believed there were two options: (1) roll over all of the lapsing provisions, or (2) deal with them on a case-by-case basis. The second option was "strong at the moment." For the longer term, Members are looking at negotiating a mechanism to address implementation problems.
On the specific matter of TRIMS, he did not think it was possible to secure agreement on a general blanket waiver for developing countries. He did see agreement for sensitivity while discussions continue on lapsed provisions. On the whole, he did not expect a huge problem securing extensions for developing countries. In the interim, however, request for dispute panels related to TRIMS and TRIPS are beginning to emerge.
A brief exchange occurred on the dispute settlement process, in which Moore acknowledged that WTO does not have a legal aid system. However, an advisory service is being put in place to assist the smaller economies with the process. He reacted positively to the suggestion of a "House of Commons Library solution": a neutral resource available to any country asking for it.
On the LDC Package:
"…it is vital to maintaining our credibility."
On the LDC Integrated Framework:
"…if only it worked."
On Conducting In-House Research:
"…we have four economists on the research team…"
On Core Labour Standards:
"…almost a North-South divide…"
Mike Moore, WTO DG to International Development Select Committee, March 7, 2000 London
UR Impact Assessment
Committee members noted that Uruguay Round impact assessments have generally lauded major developing country benefits. However, developing countries themselves disagree with that assessment. Moore responded by saying that WTO is unable to do much inhouse analysis because there are insufficient resources to conduct country by country analysis. WTO has on staff a total of four economists in the research team. Patrick Low noted that, "We are not actively pursuing it by asking people to do research for us."
When asked whether World Bank studies have exaggerated developing country benefits, Low evaded by reminding MPs that benefits flow from the implementation of agreements, an area in which developing countries are only now turning. Moore, however, did not let the bureaucratic reply stand alone. He pointed out that developing countries have a case, in that developed countries "move the goalposts," retain protectionist measures, and practice subsidization. By example, he noted that, since the Uruguay Round, developed country agricultural subsidies have increased.
The role of money and influence emerged in an exchange on per diems to developing country officials attending the 3rd Ministerial Conference. Members of the Committee had heard while visiting Malawi that senior civil servants and Ministers received per diems of six times their salaries to cover expenses while attending at Seattle. Moore noted that WTO does not pay per diems. However, he offered that the EU, the US, and others had put up money to cover expenses for some developing country delegations.
ISSN 1492-7187, TRADE POLICY MONITOR, May 2000,
copyright © THUNDER LAKE MANAGEMENT INC., all rights reserved.
Profile
Services
Search
Trade Analysis
Updates
Contacts
Trade News
Policy Street
Link To Us
Site Search
|
