lundi 17 décembre 2007

14.12.2007: UNCTAD/Trade and Development Board: Consultations of the President of TDB (afternoon)

This afternoon, the document being discussed was the PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN CLUSTER I. Most of the points discussed were not controversial, and mainly the chair was presenting its document, explaining the work done to prepare it.

Mrs. Puri noted that recommendation 5 concerns UNCTAD’s core area of competence (trying to build partnerships with other organizations in different areas...)

Portugal noted that the document still contains mistakes; the NGO list incomplete, contains some typos, some incorrect e-mail addresses, lists Albania instead of Austria…

The USA noted that they want to make sure only issues that actually fall under UNCTAD’s mandate appear in the implementation report. If an issue does not appear, they argued, then it should not be considered in UNCTAD’s mandate.
The chair responded that the members will determine UNCTAD’s mandate, not the document presented.

Argentina praised the document - mostly recommentadions 5 and especially 6; they declared a wish to expand their work with civil society.

Chair: Working with ILO, ITC, other organizations on many of these issues (non-tariff barriers), working with UNDP…

Portugal: Page 4, UNCTAD’s biofuel initiative…
Portugal argued that the lack of reference to the integrated framework (IF) is bad, seeing as UNCTAD is one of the 6 agencies responsible for the integrated framework. Financing should occur through the integrated framework rather than through extra-budgetary resources.

Chair (Mrs. Puri) – one of the main problems being focused on is brain drain and lack of skilled individuals in developing countries…

Uganda: Recommendation 18, criteria for countries’ participation?

The chair also asked for all countries to find more participation of civil society organizations… All countries were called on to look for various domestic civil society organizations.

The U.S. requested that any reference to climate change be removed from the document, as it’s already being discussed in Bali.
The chair replied that it could not be removed, as the secretary general of the UN himself had already identified climate change as the major challenge, for developing countries as well; it must NOT be removed from the agenda.

- Nathan J. Wooden

14.12.2007: UNCTAD/Trade and Development Board: Preparatory process for UNCTAD XII (morning)

This morning, the consolidated UNCTAD XII pre-Conference negotiating text was presented to all UNCTAD members to be discussed. There were various points of disagreement - generally, delegates from the European Union, Japan and the USA wanted to limit the text as much as possible and make sure that it did not reference subjects not within UNCTAD's "competence", while G77 countries - most notably Brazil - wanted to maintain a large version of the text, declaring that UNCTAD also can contribute in areas such as trade and financial stability.

Paragraph 21:
Here, there was much discussion about the terms "integration" and "cooperation". The U.S. wanted to keep both words in, keeping the text as general as possible. Brazil insisted that "integration" and "cooperation" are two similar, but different concepts (first comes cooperation, then integration CAN follow, but doesn't in all cases) and wanted to emphasize separately how EACH of the two concepts is important.

Paragraph 21bis:
The United States delegate, supported by Portugal (who was representing the EU all morning) wanted to strike this entire paragraph because it sounds too "negative" and suggested combining paragraphs 21 and 21bis, mainly using the wording of paragraph 21. The U.S. also objected to the use of the term "unfettered market forces". One of their further points was that this text should not be talking about financial markets, as that is in the competence domain of the Bretton Woods institutions.
Once again, the delegate of Brazil and some other G77 countries objected to the U.S. and EU suggestions, arguing to keep paragraph 21bis.

Paragraph 22:
Once more, Brazil objected to the U.S. delegations changes to the last line ("efforts to build a cooperative monetary system" instead of "efforts to build a truly cooperative monetary system at all levels"). The U.S. maintained that it believed these words to be unnecessary, Portugal even suggested deleting the entire paragraph. But Brazil maintained that the sentence should be left in its complete form.

Paragraph 23:
Here, the U.S. maintained that the text should speak about "international" rather than "harmonized" standards.

Paragraph 24:
This paragraph was a source of very heated debate. The United States suggested deleting the entire paragraph, arguing that financial crises happen and have always happened and that little can be done to prevent them. And, the measures to be taken fall in the competence area of the FFD, not UNCTAD. Portugal also argued that UNCTAD does not have a mandate in this area. However, many G77 countries spoke out against the deletion of this paragraph; Brazil argued that crises can indeed be controlled (even if not prevented in all cases) by regulating speculation, and they also maintained firmly that this is not only the IMF's competence area; UNCTAD can also contribute to financial stability measures and already has. The delegate from the Philippines also argued that it was irresponsible to assume that since crises can't be prevented, one should simply do nothing about them. Iran went so far as to say that this was actually a core mandate of UNCTAD, and that the paragraph should absolutely stay.
At this point, the United States took the floor again and argued that UNCTAD would be stepping out of its area of competence in making policy recommendations to the world in financial and monetary issues, since this was clearly the mission of the IMF and World Bank. The US delegate also argued that the real problem causing financial instability was not at the international level, but bad governance, corruption and lacking accountability at the level of national governments. Brazil once again took the floor and maintained that in some small countries, it may be the case that financial crises were a purely domestic problem, but crises in big and developed countries have a much more devastating impact on the global community; thus, developed countries have a systemic responsibility in this area. Russia also sided with Brazil in this debate. Portugal once again maintained that this was not UNCTAD's area of competence, but Brazil replied that UNCTAD is already acting in this area. To underpin his argument, he cited a brief on the current subprime crisis issued by UNCTAD, as well as the Integrated Framework, where UNCTAD is one of the 5 participating organizations, along with the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank.

Paragraph 25:
Brazil took the floor first, objectiong to the EU's proposed deletion of the first sentence (concerning preventive measures to debt crises). The USA responded by suggesting to delete the entire paragraph, claiming that it was "too technical" and inappropriate for UNCTAD. The USA went on to explain that UNCTAD was the wrong forum to discuss this type of problem and that UNCTAD's work would be more meaningful if it was confined to the limited areas of trade and development rather than "overstepping" its competence and becoming "watered down". Portugal sided with the United States, maintaing that if their amendments were not accepted, they also preferred to delete the entire paragraph. Brazil responded the the U.S. argument of UNCTAD overstepping its area of competence by explaining that financial and monetary stability are crucial elements regarding trade and development; they are largely interrelated, thus UNCTAD does indeed have a mandate to make suggestions and policy recommendations in these areas as well.

Paragraph 26:
Brazil took the floor first, requesting that the USA and the EU explain their modifications. The USA responded by suggesting to delete the entire paragraph and replacing it with 26alt. Russia and Portugal also preferred 26alt, although Portugal requested that ODA's be mentioned in 26alt if 26 were deleted. The U.S. delegate agreed to ask her government to agree with adding ODA's. Brazil, however, objected to this change and maintained that they preferred the original paragraph 26.

Paragraphs 27 and 27alt:
The USA took the floor first, showing its support to the EU's amendments to paragraph 27. This time, Brazil also agreed. However Paragraph 27alt cause more discussion. Japan, the USA and the EU all suggested deleting this paragraph, but Brazil, Algeria and Iran argued against this step. Iran also argued against the mention of the Paris declaration in these two paragraphs, since it was not a completely multilateral agreement that was not completely agreed on internationally. The USA was quick to respond that if this were the case, then the entire text would have to be changed and all references to non-universal institutions would have to be removed.

Paragraph 28 and 28alt:
Japan suggested deleting paragraph 28 and replacing it with 28alt. Brazil argued that it was very important to keep the reference to the "challenges of globalization". Cuba also intervened at this point, objecting mainly to the last sentence of Paragraph 28alt (which had been added by the USA); they argued that UNCTAD's role should be to reduce poverty, not to merely promote globalization and free trade.

Paragraph 29:
Brazil took the floor first, objecting to the EU's deletion of the first sentence here. However, all states present were able to come to a consensus to remove sub-paragraph d) here.

Paragraph 29bis:
Brazil suggested deleting this entire paragraph, as its reference to "resource-rich" countries was more confusing than helpful.

- Nathan J. Wooden

15.12.2007 - Investment Promotion and Business Linkages (Special Session to train Angolan delegates)

Investment Promotion & Business Linkages
Special session: Promotion strategies for Angola


(1st speaker: Prof. Mike Pfister)

According to the professor, the main way for foreign direct investment (FDI) to benefit developing countries is through linkages between foreign firms and local firms. These “linkages” can be divided into different stages:

Stage I (weakest): Ex. Angola: foreign presence of the company BASF – few and only basic linkages at a local level because goods produced abroad

Stage II: Some domestic production, more linkages…

Stage III: Regional hub (Ex. Nestlé Nigeria is not only supplying Nigeria, but also the rest of the region, concentrating production in Nigeria, thus offering increased possibilities of linkages…)

Stage IV (strongest): World Product Mandate (Ex. Daimler Chrysler in Brazil is integrated in the global value chain: these are the most strategic and competitive type of linkages) è this stage can lead to the highest benefits for a country and thus to the strongest type of linkage!


What are linkages? Transnational Companies invest in “host countries”, building up their own business there while working with secondary suppliers, all the way down to 3rd level (local manufacturers) è the linkages refer to the production interdependences between the foreign company and local suppliers.

Example: In the textile industry (garments “supply chain”), the highest level of added value is in the final level, so it is strategically important to retain this part of production in a country… Linkages can also incur in low-income countries and/or low-productivity sectors of the workforce…

Public policies matter very much! Optimally, their goal is strengthening SME’s and strengthening FDI attraction. One must attract the RIGHT sort of investment however, and target SME investment. For example, a small company working with a large company can learn a lot (if it can absorb the knowledge brought in by the large company).

A successful example of linkage policies: exemption from corporate income taxes for 5 years if a foreign company promotes technological investment (Malaysia).

One can also use a sub-national approach (South Africa: Durban, Malaysia: Penang, Mexico: Monterrey – IT sector)

Usually, public-private partnerships help enforce linkages

Project in Brazil: UNCTAD – GTZ – Instituto Ethos – Fundação Dom Cabral - SEBRAE è “Projeto Vínculos” (“Linkages project”)

Multinationals will work with and TRAIN suppliers… However, they will not go into management issues. So, small suppliers must be able to adhere to contracts in order for linkages to be able to be built up successfully.

Implementation of the project: Organize the demand of large companies for local suppliers, facilitate communication,…

There 3 levels of government intervention that can encourage linkages: 1) (Public) policy level, 2) institutional level (Brazil: SEBRAE, SENAI, SESI,…), 3) Micro level: Companies (Individual transnational corporations and SMEs)

In Brazil, the steering committee of the linkages project consists of: UNCTAD, GTZ, SEBRAE, FDC, ETHOS

Examples of linkages projects developed in Brazil:
Project 1 (Bahia): Bosch, Veracel, Lyondell with 30 SMEs // The steering committee has helped in upgrading in process management

Project 2 (São Bernardo do Campo): BASF, 10 SMEs… Upgrading in safety, health & environment…

Linkages / Investment Promotion:
Often, investment promotion agencies (IPAs) can be crucial!! The IPA needs to have a database of suppliers, organize matchmaking meetings between multinational corporations (MNCs) and SMEs and host the linkages center.


2nd speaker: Joachim Karl (Sectional Investment agreements, UNCTAD)

The sectional investment agreements (SIA) has 3 pillars of work:
- Information Provision through International Investment Agreement (IIA) databases è See Internet database concerning which investment agreements which countries have concluded, dispute settlement system…
- Policy Research and analysis (Ex. Study to be published on the past 60 years of investment agreements)
- Technical assistance

Core elements in international investment agreements (IIAAS)
- Objective: The promotion & protection of foreign investment
- Investment promotion through protection
- Core protection provisions
o Principle of fair and equitable treatment
o Principle of non-discrimination – national and “most-favored-nation” treatment (NT/MFN)
o Expropriation (definition of conditions, compensation rules…)
o Transfer of funds
o Dispute settlement

The network of IIAS:
- Bilateral investment treaties (BITs)
- Free trade agreements with investment provisions (FTAs)
- Multilateral agreements dealing with investment (GATS, TRIMS, TRIPS)
- Regional integration agreements (examples: EU, MERCOSUR, CARICOM, COMESA, ASEAN,…)
è Today, a total of ~2500 investment treaties exist, and about 70 agreements made per year.

Top 10 signatories of BITs, end of 2006: 1. Germany, 2. China, 3. Switzerland, 4. UK, 5. Egypt, 6. Italy, 7. France, 8. Netherlands, 9. Belgium + Luxemburg, 10. South Korea

(USA not in list because huge country with lots of internal investment; also, it started later than European countries – spent much time developing NAFTA and leaving behind BITs)

Types of BITs: 40% developed with developing countries, 27% developing – developing countries (“South-South” agreements) è Enormous increase in South-South agreements since the beginning of the 1990s

Proliferation of FTAs with investment provisions since the beginning of the 1990s

Participation of LDCs in the IIA network
- Over 400 BITs
- Regional integration groups (ASEAN, COMESA, ECOWAS, SADC)
- The involvement of LDCs in bilateral FTAs remains limited

Top 10 LDC’s, BITs concluded:
Yemen, 2. Sudan, 3. Bangladesh, 4. Ethiopia…

BITs concluded by Angola with Cape Verde, Germany,… (5 signed, only 2 ratified)

Number of investor – state dispute cases (end 2006): huge rise in dispute cases (slowdown in 2006)

“Spaghetti-Ball” of international investment agreements, involving whole world… Timor Leste doesn’t appear to be involved in barely any of the IIAs.


Some characteristics of the existing IIA universe:
- universal (every country is involved in it)
- atomisation (very different from the trade field with the WTO and multilateral rules to which everyone adheres; all treaties are still negotiated bilaterally, making them difficult to understand, sometimes even contradictory to each other
- multilayered and multifaceted (Countries sign bilateral as well as regional agreements; there are more and more integrated approaches to economic cooperation)
- Investment PROMOTION is pursued indirectly through investment PROTECTION.
è The atomisation leads to isolation of countries because the network is so complicated..

Coping with the complexity of this system is a major challenge for all countries, particularly developing countries!
There are concerns that IIAs do not do enough to promote FDI.
However, IIA treaty making also offers opportunities for countries to become innovative and to seek specific approaches in furthering their development goals, for instance as far as investment promotion is concerned.

Investment Promotion in IIAs:
Some challenges that countries face today:
- There has been increase in investment disputes; some think protection goes too far while not achieving the desired result of higher investment flows è ex: “expropriation” originally conceived as formal claiming of ownership through a government, but often construed as a government simply regulating an investment, for example through environmental standards.. and firms interpret this as “expropriation” because they argue that their investment no longer makes sense due to the new rules!

All IIAs include:
- non-discrimination principle (National Treatment, Most Favored Nation Clause…)
- Fair and Equitable treatment
- Performance requirements (for example, investor only gets tax relief in certain conditions)
è These provisions give reassurance to foreign investors about their treatment, but also limit the discretion of host countries in designing investment promotion measures.

- Most IIAs do not contain any specific investment promotion provisions
- However, the minority that does include such provisions shows a great variety of approaches.

Some elements of investment promotion measures in IIAs:
- encouraging the organization of investment seminars, fairs, exhibitions,…
- Linkages between foreign investors and local firms
- fiscal or financial incentives (this can occur either through home or host countries!)
- Easing informal obstacles to investment (“red tape”)
- Big question: Are these legally binding provisions or not?

2 Main policy options for states:
- Improve GENERAL framework for foreign investments, or focus on INDIVIDUAL investments?

2 approaches to attracting investment:
- laissez-faire (just try to have a favourable general framework and hope that it will attract FDI)
- strategic investment policy: sector- or activity-specific promotion measures

Goals:
- gain competitive advantage in attracting FDI
- target specific sectors for FDI
- increase transparency (formalize existing measures, increase assurance for investment

Costs:
- may be expensive in financial or fiscal incentives (è capacity restraints for developing countries!)
- may result in “windfall gains” for foreign investors who would have come anyway, but will now have huge profits due to incentives, at the cost of their host country…
- Investment promotion provisions in IIAs are no guarantee that investment flows will actually increase

Investment promotion is not yet strongly developed in IIAs
However, even investment promotion makes no sense without sound domestic policies.

www.unctad.org/iia (IIA Databases, IIA Issues series “Pink Series”, IIA Monitor – 4 times a year, talks about recent developments)

In practise, there are often 2 levels.. an “umbrella” IIA, but then specific investment contracts between a company (ex. oil company) and a government, for big investments (“direct umbrella”


The Integrated Framework (IF)

3rd speaker: Céline Maccro

Trade as a catalyst of growth:
è The IF is open to all the LDC’s meeting certain criteria, it has 6 core agencies (IMF, ITC, UNCTAD, UNDP, World Bank, WTO) and about 20 donors that contribute…

Commerce is seen as an important factor of development.

$200-400 million over 5 years would be required (task force estimate)

What is needed at the Geneva level?
Steering Committee to provide overall policy direction, review progress and provide a platform for the exchange of experience
Board to provide oversight and policy direction

The IF in Angola
- Angola member since 2004
- Preliminary mission held in 2004
- DTIS started in October 2005
- DTIS National Validation workshop held in Luanda, 11-12 July 2007 in presence of the minister of trade, M. Muafumba and IF Focal Point, M. Lusevikueno (commerce minister); ANIP staff and private sector representatives were also there.

Tomorrow: action plans for Angola, strengths an weaknesses of Angola as an FDI location è opportunities arising from these strengths, companies in discussion for investments, opportunities for linkages & skill / know-how transfers,… //
Threats facing Angola coming from the weaknesses of Angola and competing FDI locations, what can be done to keep these threats from keeping FDI away…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Workshop:

Angola’s opportunities in the global market for FDI:
Development of basic infrastructures (roads, highways, railways, hospitals and schools)
Specialization of human resources based on sectors
Tourism economy + agro-industry
Development of the integrated and supranational networks of telecommunications
Insertion of high-tech into the key sectors of the national economy

Angola’s main threats in the global for FDI:
Political instability / Dependence on the oil sector
Bad governance: excessive bureaucracy and corruption / natural and environmental threats due to the bad use of resources
Macroeconomic instability
Bad management of national assets & “brain drain” / Insufficient investment in the education sector
Absence of policies directed toward the domestic private sector / Lack of having established a stable regional market.


Interesting information for Timor-Leste:
Possibility of Distance Learning (in the “Train for Trade” program to help LDC’s increase their trade)
Train for Trade website (“Formação Portuária”, in Portuguese): è “A gestão moderna dos Portos” (how trade works, rules, how to run a port, customs rules & regulations,…)

Links to some of the material presented:
http://learn.unctad.org/course ….
http://learn.unctad.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=1936
http://learn.unctad.org/course/view.php?id=21

Objectives for Angola:
Develop training courses (“e-learning” courses!)
Educate people that can form Angolans
Organize national seminars to promote investment

- Nathan J. Wooden

mercredi 12 décembre 2007

The Implementation Game: Developing Countries, the TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property

5 December 2007

Dr. Carolyn Deere – Director, Global Trade Governance Project, Global Economic Governance Programme, University of Oxford

The TRIPS Agreement triggered an intense global debate on the relationship between intellectual property (IP) regulation and development. As TRIPS is implemented through measures at the national level, an analysis of the implementation imposes itself to understand the impact of the agreement on development countries.

Dr. Deere reviewed the evidence on TRIPS implementation, noting a variation in the use of the “flexibilities” mechanism by developing countries. She found that some LDCs were not taking advantage of the flexibilities and in some cases, very poor countries were even going beyond the IP rules of the TRIPS. In order to find an explanation for this puzzling finding, she looked at the process of TRIPS implementation as a competitive game with actors such as industry, NGOs, governments, IOs, each following their particular agenda.

The presentation put forward two explanations:

1) The first, linked to the understanding and global politics of the IP rules implementation, sees the TRIPS implementation shaped by the dynamics of debates on the TRIPS and international IP negotiations. The TRIPS provisions being very contested and sometimes said not to belong into the WTO framework (Bhagwati, Stiglitz), States from both the North and the South pushed to change the deal: for the North, IP protection standards were to be raised further, while the South wanted to lower them. As IP rules affect areas as diverse as consumers’ rights, public health, education or open-source software, public debate gained momentum.

2) The second explanation focuses on the interplay between international debates, external power pressures and the national process of IP-decision-making. Dr. Deere identified and explained sources of external pressure the strategies that these actors employed and the kinds of power they exerted.

Two currents of pressure distinguished themselves:

  1. one argued for a rapid and swift compliance with the core TRIPS rules everywhere, encouraging countries to go beyond TRIPS (TRIPS Plus). Media campaigns and attempts to shape the ideas of developing countries’ delegates on the meaning and the advantages of the TRIPS were the most current means of pressure. Within the WTO and the WIPO, a “culture of rapid compliance” with the TRIPS was mainstreamed. Meanwhile, as most capacity building assistance was offered by WIPO and developed countries, this was characterised by the promotion of reforms to comply with stricter standards, sometimes even discouraging the use of TRIPS flexibilities.
  2. the other current, represented by NGOs, IGOs, UN Agencies, academics and developing countries, argued for the use of flexibilities. They also resorted to means like media campaigns to raise the awareness about the advantages of the flexibilities mechanism. Also, a sort of “research war” started between the two currents as the result of retaliatory reports on both sides.

Finally, Dr. Deere shifs the focus out of global politics towards the national level and elaborates on domestic factors in developing countries, which either limited or amplified the actual influence of external pressures, thereby contributing to the variation in the TRIPS implementation.

  1. the bureaucratic capacities of developing countries with respect to IP implementation: the weaker these are, the more susceptible the country will be to absorb whatever ideal drives the technical assistance they receive (consider the actors providing TA: WIPO and developed countries). Further, IP Officers are usually more technocrats than public policy specialists, thereby influencing the decision making of a developing country without taking into account its public policy needs, especially in countries where the IP Office is relatively independent and where its decisions do not enter into a public debate mechanism.
  2. The coordination between the capitals and their missions to the WIPO and WTO: as it is the IP officers negotiating and not the trade officers, it is all the more important to ensure proper coordination between the mission and the capital.
  3. Public engagement: if the industry and elements of the civil society speak up either against or in favour of the use of flexibilities, in many parliaments, there is a lack of knowledge and interest in these issues. There is also no debate among local interest groups (there are, however, interest groups pushed by branches of international interest groups, like a Novartis local affiliation or a MSF or OXFAM local affiliation).

The conclusion draws out some lessons learnt from these findings that could advance a development agenda with regard to domestic IP reforms and the implementation of international IP agreements by developing countries.

Comments:

Mr. Boumedie Mahi, Permanent Mission of Algeria, following WIPO activities:

-He points out that only recently, WIPO secretariate started delivering TA regarding flexibilities to developing countries. Now, DCs have gained freedom to express themselves in favour of the use of flexibilities.

-the Development Agenda of WIPO has been one response to the issue of discussion. The aim is to have a balanced protection: to encourage innovators AND take into account development and access to items by the public. Then, he noted that capacity building for this objective was needed: the developed countries’ view of TA was biased towards helping implementing TRIPS. The Agenda emphasises the need to consider the balance, including the developmental dimension.

Mr. Christoph Spennemann, Legal expert, Intellectual Property Team, Policy Implementation Section, UNCTAD, Geneva:

He basically agrees with the presentation’s content. However, he pointed out one question:

Is there really a gap between the discourse of developing countries and the domestic implementation of the TRIPS?

-Observing, as Dr. Deere did, that there is a high level of IP protection in LDCs, while more flexibilities are used in DCs, Mr Spennemann sees the decisive criteria in that TRIPS flexibilities are difficult to implement. His example drawn from patent law: if not even developed countries are clear on the definition of “inventive step”, how should developing countries approach such issues.

-this domestic capacity to implement differs from country to country. He notes that a group of countries, that he chooses to call Group3 countries, has the highest IP standards but a very low technical capacity in IP. Advanced developing countries with higher technical capacity make, on the other hand, considerable use of flexibilities. These countries, like Brazil, India, Argentina or China, he notes, were also the ones that actively participated already in the Uruguay Round and are now aware of the implications of flexibilities.

In other words, Group3 members know about IP benefits but lack awareness on the IP impact on their public domain and the consequences on innovation. The widespread belief is that in IP protection linked to foreign investment but they ignore the importance of flexibilities to attract foreign generic producers of pharmaceuticals, for example. The result is that pre-TRIPS laws prevail due to the lack of capacity.

This very group does not participate in the debate between the two currents of pressure and in the insights regarding the use of flexibilities. This lack makes them open for any suggestion, which will usually come by in a race of the TA providers to win the game.

He concludes that domestic capacity to UNDERSTAND the implications of flexibilities is KEY. IP-related capacity building that takes account of development objectives is needed.

Mr. Ahmed Abdel Latif, Programme Manager for Intellectual Property, ICTSD, Geneva

He raises the question of legitimacy from the Southern point of view: for the South, he claims, it is important to know who is putting forward what idea and what suggestion. He proposes to incorporate this element into the game analysis of the presentation.



Noelia Díaz

UNCTAD - Globalization of port logistics: opportunities and challenges for developing countries, A pre-UNCTAD XII event

The purpose of the meeting is to examine the most suitable ways for developing countries to meet the challenges and opportunities that the globalization of logistics may pose to their national trade and investment policies, in the light of recent trends in international maritime transport and developments in sea, river and inland terminals.


World trade, development and logistics: an industry perspective

C.T. Burke, Senior Advisor, K Line America:

In Los Angeles, an environmental program was set up through the national ports.
Each developing countries need to have a national plan to improve all the dimensions level: employment, social, economy…
Three years ago, American ports discuss about a national security program to bring security in the ports.
Each port need to have an important security since 11/09 (the world have change…).
We need a central organization to answer to the security issue, unfortunately it’s an expensive issue, but it should be the United Nations Organization.
He finished his speech by “when it’s time it’s time” (in relation with security matter).

QUESTION:
- Suriname: How small countries could participate to the globalization in Logistic without important resources?
Not only could the big port manage to consolidate their infrastructures but also the small port if we work together through International Institution.



Port logistics: strategies for containerized trades

T.Morwe, Chief Executive, Durban Port:

There was a growth in container (Vessel call and Average Call Size) during the last seven years.
The main problem in South Africa for the Logistics is the distance. It exist a long distance from ports in South Africa.
In according to The World Bank report on Logistics, on 130 countries, South Africa is place to 24th rank concerning the Middle Income of his ports.

Ports in Developing Countries normally faced the following problem:
- capacity constraints
- skills shortage
- lack of modern technology
- low degrees of trade flows



John Verschelden, Vice President and Head of government and Regulatory Affairs, APM Terminals:

APM have this Head office in The Hague (Netherlands) and have many Regional Offices (31 countries whose China, EU, UE…).

A significant role on World Economy:
- Increasing distance between the areas of production and consumption
- World trade drives the global economy
- Container terminal play a key role in global supply chain

To resume, the idea is to go through reducing the costs to facilitate the global trade.
Market growth (dollars):
- 2000: 236 Millions
- 2006: 442 Millions
- 2011: 673 Millions

And also in regional trade:
- Africa: 9%
- Middle East:6%
- Asia and Oceania: 8%

In some area (for instance in the east of Australia), it exist or emerge bottleneck in container handling capacity.

Challenge for container terminal industry:
- getting capacity on line, when and where required
- long project cycles in developed markets
- increased complexity due to environmental constraints
- capacity landside connection
- lack of suitable deep water sites
- competition for experienced
- Plus backlogs in maintenance of acquired terminals

Plus in developing Countries:
- State of port infrastructures and services
- Privatization processes
- National property
- Quality and capacity of landside connection
- Proximity to urban areas
- Training of labors
- Political instability
- Customs procedures
- Poor safety culture
- Maintaining equipment
- Corruption

QUESTION:
African Union Commission: Only some big ports like Durban are effective. As the African countries will represent the most important business in the future, the UNCTAD help to our ports could profit to public and private participants.

M. Morwe: We knew the weakness and we improving the inter-connection between each ports in South Africa. Moreover, the key challenge is the transformation of the industry of Logistic.



Inland connections to global networks

A.Von Stempel, Director, Freshwater Logistics:

Ocean freight:
- inter-Asia: 44.3 M, TEU* (twenty-foot equivalent units) up 9.7%
- Asia/Europe: 17.8 M, TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) up 13%


*= Container capacity

TEU growth:
- 2002: 2.96 M
- 2006: 3.1 M
- 2007: 3.7M

Concerning to the capacity of each port, we could see a saturation of some ports, and generally an increase of the volume in relation to the capacity.

Interland Strategy:

Strength of road: speed, flexibility, fixed pricing per unit.
Strength of rail: mass transportation capacity, fixed schedules and pricing.
Strength of barge: environmental friendly, mass transportation capacity, fixed but flexible schedules.

Many weaknesses with rail: congestion issue, delay vessels and trains, train could be longer but there is platform length limitation, space shortage in train, lack of parking at gate…

Role of International Institutions:
- financing renovation of essential infrastructures
- encouraging customs and administrative procedures simplification
- ensuring fair competition


Information:

Document: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdxiibpd3_en.pdf

Publication Review of Maritime Transport: http://www.unctad.org/rmt2007





Damien AFONSO

jeudi 29 novembre 2007

UNCTAD - Preparatory Committee for UNCTAD XII (Fifth meeting)

UNCTAD - Preparatory Committee for UNCTAD XII (Fifth meeting)

29 November 2007


All the discussion on this day was almost the fact of G77 and China and the EU.

G 77 is the most important speaker. The group makes a lot of amendments in every paragraph.
In opposed to G77 representative, Portugal (EU speaker) decides to make only short remarks.
Japan requires comments on some paragraph.

Regarding to the paragraph 52, Japan thinks that “Climate Change claiming” mustn’t to be included in UNCTAD paper.
On contrary, Brazil needs to take into account the climate change in the different economic discussions (biotrade).

Brazil keep on being very pro-active in the negotiation, G77 makes many amendments in several sentences.

In many times, Portugal wishes to delete some paragraphs or sentences.

EU tries to include the word “sustainable” when we speak about “development” (paragraph 58).

G77 asks to do one paragraph to take into account the GSTP. So they want to separate the paragraph 60 to create the paragraph 60 bis.

In this paragraph, Portugal wants to delete the word “new protectionism”.

G77 try to include “predictability” on the paragraph 64.

Brazil was dynamic because of many claiming of the G77 members.

During the meeting, Portugal says “ok the important isn’t the word that we choose but the fact that we discuss on”.

In paragraph 66, Portugal decides to delete the word “tourism”.



Damien AFONSO

Group of 77 and China for UNCTAD XII

Group of 77 and China for UNCTAD XII
\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"4\"\>On behalf of H.E. Ambassador Clodoaldo Hugueney, Permanent Representative of Brazil and Chairman of the Preparatory Committee of the G77 and China for UNCTAD XII, \u003cb\>there will be a group meeting on Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 10.00hrs and at 15.00hrs. in Room XXVI with interpretation.\u003c/b\>\u003c/font\> \n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"4\"\>Agenda: Preparations for UNCTAD XII Prepcom Text. \u003c/font\>\n\u003cdiv\>\n\u003cp\>\n\u003cp\>\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"3\"\>Edward chisanga\u003c/font\> \n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"3\"\>Officer in charge\u003c/font\> \n\u003cdiv\>\n\u003cp\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"3\"\> Group Liaison Unit\u003c/font\> \n\u003cp\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/div\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/div\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/p\>\u003c/div\>\u003cbr\>\u003c/div\>\u003c/div\>\u003c/div\>",0]
);
//-->
Tuesday 27 November 2007




Sub-theme 1: Enhancing coherence at all levels for sustainable economic development and poverty reduction in global policymaking, including the contribution of regional approaches

Chairman asked to all members to make compromises because we need to work so fast to permit to the G77 and China to have a position paper behind the lunch.

On the paragraph 60, GRULAC requires to separate the sentence because of they need to devote one paragraph to the GSTP (Global System of Trade Preference) among Developing Countries.

In many times during the conference, the Chair invites every participant to be reasonable and very economic through amendments.

On the paragraph 61, the Assembly decides to make efforts, and the Maurice proposals accepted.

On the 62, Honduras would like to understand what the Chair wants to say when he speaks about “private sector and government”. Egypt try to insert a new sentence but Chair find a compromise with the term “compatible” instead of “harmonized”.

Secretary fined a solution with a new 62bis which contain “arbitrary” (G77 position paper).

On the paragraph 63, Perou propose to include an example with COMPAL programs (an UNCTAD program create three years ago which it benefits to the Latina American and African Countries.
To be more comprehensive, Chair wants that Perou explain the programs.
South Africa considers that COMPAC could become a platform.

On the paragraph 64, Ethiopia (assistant) and Maurice (The donor community and international financial institutions should ensure that the Aid for Trade initiative is comprehensive in scope, funding and sustainability and predictability) make amendments.

A debate is opening during the paragraph 68. Guatemala wants two paragraphs, but Iran and Maurice wants only one. Finally, Chair keeps two paragraphs.

On the 69, Asia desire to delete this paragraph.

70: Grulac asks for two paragraphs on Energy
71: South Africa adds “international development”

Chair asks to Algeria to demand to his coordinator when he wants to make an amendment. Always in the same idea, Chair wants to win time and prevent the negotiations in a last debate.

75: (b) Grulac wants to add “trade facilitation”.
(h) Maurice removes “such”.
Iran wants to discuss about his paragraph but the Chair need to go faster.

77. After an intensive debate, Chair decides to let the different example on the paragraph 77: UNCTAD has been, and should remain, at the forefront of efforts to resolve the trade and development problems associated with the commodity economy covering agriculture, forestry, fisheries, metals and minerals, energy, oil and gas.

78: (b) Chair adds “convened by members States”.
(e) Grulac adds IADGs.

82: Into this paragraph it as the Chair (in the name of Brazil) who wants to include “biofuels”.

83: in the same idea, El Salvador included “Trade and Development” on this paragraph.

Generally, the Latina American country was very active concerning “Biotrade”.



Damien AFONSO

Asian Group (UNCTAD)

15 November 2007
Asian Group (UNCTAD)

Introduction

Addressing the challenges of the current stage of globalization and creating opportunities for development

On the paragraph 2, China propose to change “a lack of productive capacity and a lack of access to basic services” because of extreme poverty is due to many reasons and not only the lack of productive capacity and access to basic services.

Chairman of Asian group explain to Liban Delegation that we need to take political decision behind to make actions on the ground.

Liban and Singapour want to do one paragraph with paragraph 3 and 4 because of unuse of an example in paragraph 4: “For example, the challenges faced by the least developed countries (LDCs) and some African countries are different from those faced by some countries with economies in transition, and their capacities for tackling the challenges are different too, even though all are seeking to benefit from the new wave of globalization in which the South is playing an increasingly significant role”.

However, Chair of Asian group prefer to keep the separate paragraph.

On the paragraph 5 and 23, Liban desire to speak about “developed countries” rather than “advanced countries”.

On the paragraph 8, the word “finished” is negative for the Philippines delegation, so Bangladesh proposes to use the word “single” to speak about economic model.

Chair thinks that development on paragraph 14 concern all the level and not only the national level: “At the national level, sustainable and equitable development requires pro-growth macroeconomic policies, efficient structural policies, good governance and respect for human and economic rights”

Pakistan wants to delete “At the national level”.


Damien AFONSO

UNCTAD´s Sixth Debt Management

UNCTAD´s Sixth Debt Management

21/11/07

EMERGING CAPITAL MARKETS


Size, Trends, and Regional Characteristics.
Mr. David T. Beers, Managing Director,
Sovereign & International Public Finance Ratings,
Standard & Poor’s, UK



Recent Market Behavior

- The global market turbulence since July 2007 has had only a muted impact on the EM sector.
- New sovereign foreign currency debt issuance by Ghana, Sri Lanka, and especially other countries in Africa.

Emerging Market Sovereign Bond Spreads by Rating

- Liquidity, hedging mechanisms developing but often limited
- Foreign investors participation rising in benign market condition, but will that change?
- Foreign participation in local markets can be expected to fall in periods of financial distress, as in Mexico, Russia, and Turkey in the past.
- How will local currency denominated, foreign currency payable debt governed under NY or English law fare in future debt restructurings?
- Will select restructurings of inflation linked bonds damage cross-border investor interest in this instrument?
- More classes of debt have potential to change issue and investor dynamics in restructurings in ways that are hard to predict.




FORMULATION OF STRATEGIES FOR ENTERING DOMESTIC
AND INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS


Mr. Udaibir Saran Das, Division Chief,
Monetary & Capital Markets Department, IMF
What if the Outlook Worsens?
Unlikely to lead to major pull backs by foreign banks and portfolio investors.

LICs as an Asset Class
Experience of Eastern Europe relevant for Africa?
Should non-concessionnal borrowing from International markets be limited?

Offshore Financing
Subsidiaridies of large banks
Currency option market

Growing Investor Interest in the last “frontier”?
Benefits of International assurance.
Use a proceed is a key factor for early decision

Commons Errors
- Issue sizes rush to market under pricing
- Poor selection of lead managers
- Insufficient choice of proposals
- Weak investors base
- Issuing without formulating debt strategy
- Delay










Mr. Tadashi Endo, Senior Financial Sector Specialist,
Corporate Governance and Capital Markets Department, World Bank



Two dimensions for buildings confidence and attracting longer-tem funding
- Common factors for liquid government bond market supply, demand, and intermediation.
- Building Blocks for Yield Curve and Low-cost Public Debt

3 pillars approach to support liquid secondary market of government bonds

Yeld-seeking Assets
market microstructure
Performance competition

We need policy coordination between.
- Debt management Office
- Capital Market Regulator
- Contractual Saving Regulators
- Central Bank



Damien AFONSO

mercredi 14 novembre 2007

“Business, Social Policy and Corporate Political Influence in Developing Countries”

UNRISD

13/11/07

“Business, Social Policy and Corporate Political Influence in Developing Countries”

· Session 5 New Social Pacts and Regulatory Politics

ü Agni Kalfagianni, Professor of International Relations at the University of Stuggart: “Private food governance and implication for social sustainability and democratic legitimacy”

It seems that the global food governance is more and more practice by the private sector, and we could especially see an increase of private governance institution.

On the one part, food sector involve many retail concentration and a control product chain from farm to the fork.

On the other part, we could see that the competition between every companies is not only on the price but also on the quality.

Concerning Developing countries, Export oriented on agricultural production.

Businesses depend on the ability of retailers to exercise significant market power (structural and discursive power).

Some examples: Global Food Initiative, Europgap, Food trace, British Retail Consortium (BRC) Global Standard.

Consequences

Positive consequences are social provisions such as worker welfare included in the standard.

Secondly, we could consider that there are many new opportunities for exportations since we are in a global market.

Then, all these consequences have positive effects for domestic food safety.

Unfortunately, because of concentration, small farmers and retail stores squeezed out of business.

This evolution increase mass rural exodus and unemployment.

Concerning the democratic legitimacy, we could stop on many issues: Question about participation, transparency and accountability for the input.

Moreover, how inclusive the developing countries public on output.

In a deliberative democracy, how fostering inclusiveness and unconstrained dialog?

On his meetings, Agni Kalfagianni uses more questions rather than answers.

ü Paola Perez Aleman, Mc Gill University, Professor of Strategy and Organization: “MNC-NGO Partnerships”

We speak about alliance or partnerships?

On the one part, MNC make resistance to change these business practices.

On the other part, NGO pressure to collaborate with MNC.

MNC and NGO should be working together, because of their active support at the local level, they could create new standards and including those standards in local reality.

For example, MNC-NGO partnership could be effectiveness to bear the coffee crisis.

It permits to achieving upgrading and new norms about costs, affordability, certification challenge, assistance (technical, financial, organizing) and to adapt specific standards for small producers.

We need to standards emerging, to increase public-private networks, norms and principles for coordinating relations between NGO and MNC and finally to upgrade competitiveness.



Damien Afonso

dimanche 4 novembre 2007

Trade and Development Board 54th Session STRUCTURALLY WEAK, VULNERABLE ANS SMALL ECONOMIES. Who are they. What can UNCTAD do for them

11, October 2007

The presentation was done by Mr. Habib Ouane, Director of the Division for Africa, Least Developed Countries and Special Programmes

“Members States of UNCTAD, in paragraph 33 of the São Paolo Consensus, decided that UNCTAD should enhance its work on the special problems of LDCs, small island developing States, and of landlocked developing countries as well as structurally weak, vulnerable, and small economies.”

A background note on the issue is available on UNCTAD’s web page: TD/B/54/CRP.4

According to Mr. Ouane there is a common set of issues among all these countries (92).

The smallness:
- it’s a major handicap in all LDCs, 50. No country of a population above 45.000 citizens can be considered as an LDC.
- LLDCs: 31 countries among witch 16 are also LDCs.
- SIDS: this category has been established in 1994 in Barbados. And it’s only since then that island are considered by the UN system as small.

The structural weakness:
- the criteria to identify an LDC among the UN system is the capital, the economy diversification, the primacy of producing capacity development.
- landlockness constitutes a break for development.
- in the SIDS, there is a weakness of economy concentration and marginalisation from international economy.

As for UNCTAD, the vulnerability is most a matter of LDCs.

They are 3 lines of action in UNCTAD’s work in favour of SWVSEs: advising on implication of countries status; analysing and explaining issues; offering direct assistance to relevant countries (international tourism, cultural industries, technologies learning, knowledge factor)

Who are these SWVSEs ?
There are 2 ways of answering.
- leave the answer at the discretion of the interested members States. Let the member States decide and define themselves as in the World Trade Organisation.
- in UNCTAD we make an effort to delaminate the groups through criteria. We try to carry out the identified exercise in a proper manner: analyzing the 3 implicit criteria structural weakness, smallness and vulnerability; selecting relevant variables:

To define the SWVSEs, structural weakness and vulnerability are captured simultaneously through the UN exposure Index. The latter is most desirable to capture the vulnerability: share of primary sector GDP; Index of merchant export concentration; population in logarithm; index of remoteness.
The smallness is captured through the GDP. São Tome and Principe had the weakest GDP in 2005. Mr. Oaune reminded that Palestine received attention from UNCTAD although it doesn’t belong to any UN category.

What can UNCTAD do for the SWVSEs?
-Support paramount development goals of SWVSEs
- build economy resilience as response to vulnerability
- UNCTAD’s action to reduce structural disadvantages. There are 2 areas of assistance and support: institution capacity building and assistance (investment policies); trade policy (facilitation, transport, e-commerce, customs).
- UNCTAD’s action to enhance economic specialization: primacy sector (commodity related information); secondary sector (support entrepreneurship, dynamic and new sector on World Trade, enterprise competition); tertiary sector (tourism, creative industries, and other services: health, music…)

International tourism is the only permanent task force on UNCTAD.

Some other approaches to SWVSE s:
- Regional approach: central America (9 SWVSEs), Africa (6 non LDC)
- Cooperation with other organisations: Regional Economic Commission, World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Asia Development Bank, International American Development Bank.

In conclusion, Mr. Habib Ouane said that countries should be more responsible in calling for UNCTAD assistance.

IPF

jeudi 1 novembre 2007

WTO Public Forum, October 2007

The WTO’s 7th Annual Public Forum was organized around four key topics that were to be debated during the two days: global governance; coherence between the national and international levels of policy-making and between different multilateral institutions; economic growth and the role of trade as a vehicle for development; and finally, sustainable development.

Plenary opening

In his opening speech, Director-General Pascal Lamy, highlighted the numerous occasions where civil society had a real impact on the WTO agenda. These include the 2003 agreement on cheaper medicines for developing countries, and the inclusion of issues such as fisheries subsidies, environmental goods and services, and food aid in the current Doha negotiations. With regard to the ongoing negotiations concerning agricultural and industrial goods, Pascal Lamy seemed very optimistic, stating that « as positions converge on these key subjects, the pace of work is also accelerating on the rest of the Doha agenda ». Finally, to conclude his keynote address, the Director-General stressed the importance of the progress made in the parallel agenda package on Aid-for-Trade.

Her Excellency, Ms. Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland, emphasized the need to keep current Doha negotiations alive, in order to harness globalization, stating that bilateral or regional trade agreements were only second best solutions. She said that the way in which the WTO could contribute to control the phenomenon was precisely through a guarantee of a universal, rule-based and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system, which would be especially in the interest of weaker and poorer nations. Concerning the global economic situation today, Ms Halonen stressed that « all countries have the right to develop and to aim for growth and prosperity ». She also mentioned the growing influence of trade on other non-economic dimensions of development such as the environment, democracy and human rights, and urged the WTO and other international organizations to ensure that their policies are coherent with each other. On the particular issue of sustainable development, Ms Halonen stressed that industrialized countries must continue to take all necessary steps to promote access to environmentally sound technologies for all countries, and show solidarity towards developing countries that address climate change. Finally, Ms Halonen congratulated the positive role the WTO has taken in its Aid for Trade programme, which has seen an expansion of its agenda beyond the narrowly defined technical assistance, and is now supporting developing countries efforts to achieve better competitiveness in world trade.

Ms Olubanke King-Akerele, Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Liberia, said that the topic under discussion was of vital importance to Liberia and to all developing nations around the globe, who have not yet seen the benefits of trade. In this respect, she expressed a rather pessimistic view concerning the Doha negotiations, stating that « recasting the debate and making real progress will be particularly difficult with respect to the full and fair integration of the 50 least developed countries into the multilateral system ». Ms Akerele gave a brief account of her country’s economic situation, and she insisted on the role of trade in solidifying peace in post-conflict situations, and in particular in the Mano River Union Subregion of Liberia, which includes also Sierra Leone, Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire. Here she has made a reference to the growth circles occurring in South East Asia, as an example of positive developments at the sub regional level, that bring peace and security through infrastructural development. Ms Akerele continued by addressing Liberia’s current process of developing a poverty reduction strategy. With the help of the International Trade Center, Liberia developed a trade road map, which includes a series of supply-chain analysis on products such as coffee, cocoa, rubber, wood products, crafts and spices. What is significant about this, Ms Akerele said, is that « we are bringing to the small people what this business of trade is all about ». She then tackled the question of global governance and the role the WTO played in the construction of such a system. She said that the attacks the WTO received from various actors concentrated mainly on the need for a more balanced decision-making power between rich and poor, and a more egalitarian trade regime. She insisted on the fact that if Doha failed, the international community would have failed the global poor, and she also requested to see the gender dimension provided for in WTO trade matters. Ms Akerele concluded her speech by reminding the public about the urgency of the matters under discussion for « the bottom billion ».

Professor Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, spoke of good news with regard to the goal of reducing global poverty by half by 2015, and attributed much of the credit to the WTO, if the happy outcome was to be met. He gave the examples of China and India as countries of unprecedented sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and said that their successes show why the Millennium Development Goals will be met by 2015. Professor Mahbubani added that the reason of such extraordinary success lies in the fact that China and India « have bought and are implementing the essential WTO vision that both they and the world will be better off by opening and liberalizing their economies, especially in the field of trade ». Nevertheless, he noted that the current impasse in the Doha negotiations came from the loss of faith in trade-liberalization from the traditional champions of liberalization, namely the United States and the European Union, who are afraid of loosing their competitiveness to developing countries like China and India. He qualified this situation as tragic. With respect to this new international context, Professor Mahbubani claimed that the role and responsibility of NGOs had to change dramatically. He urged them to change their attitudes towards globalization, giving the example of China’s strong growth since its entry into the WTO, as evidence of the virtues of trade liberalization. He proceeded to give examples of how globalization is actually helping the poorest people around the world, through cell phones, the use of internet, televisions or education. In his concluding remarks, Professor Mahbubani apologized for his optimistic faith in globalization and reiterated his concern with regard to the increase in trade barriers quietly taking place in America and Europe, a phenomenon which he qualified as « fatal » for the developed countries and the world at large, in building a better world for all.

A Governance Audit for the WTO: Roundtable Discussion on Making Global Trade work for Development

The workshop was divided into two parts, first a joint presentation by Dr. Carolyn Deere, Mr. Mayur Patel and Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, from the Global Trade Governance Project, GEG, Oxford, followed by a roundtable discussion with panelists Mr. Harlem Désir MEP, Vice Chairman of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament; Mr. Faizel Ismail, Head of Delegation to the WTO from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of South Africa; Mr. Alejandro Jara, WTO Deputy Director-General; H. E. Mr. Mothae Maruping, Ambassador, Permanent representative of Lesotho to the WTO; Mr. Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, Chief Executive, ICTSD; H. E. Mr. Guillermo Valles Galmés, Ambassador, Permanent representative of Uruguay to the WTO.

The joint presentation began by establishing a governance audit as a means to shed light on decision-making process in the WTO. The concept was used as a tool to systematically identify the mechanisms for improving the responsiveness of the WTO system to development priorities and sustainability concerns. The presentation focused on three of the eight functions served by the WTO: negotiation, monitoring, and technical assistance and capacity building.

1. The negotiation function, Mr. Mayur Patel:

Mr. Patel spoke of the informal changes occurring in the decision-making process, and in particular of the rising number of developing country coalitions and their inclusion as platforms for joint-representation in the WTO. He said that what was striking about this new trend of coalition bargaining was the unprecedented institutionalization of these groupings. The result of this is that developing countries are enhancing their representation and negotiation capacity, since their delegations are usually relatively small and ill equipped to influence the negotiations. Coalition bargaining has thus allowed them to partially offset their individual constraints through cooperation in informal gathering. Coalitions have also improved access to WTO decision-making by providing developing countries with a foothold in previously exclusive meetings. Finally, a third implication of coalition representation is that it has improved access of many weak states and the internal transparency of some WTO decision-making processes.

2. The monitoring function, Mr. Arunabha Ghosh:

Mr. Ghosh reminded the audience that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism was established in 1989, as a means to increase the collective understanding of members’ policies. Originally, developing countries accepted the TPRM with some exceptions. The TPRM’s activity has grown significantly over the years: almost all countries have undergone a review at least once, 26 of the 32 LDC members have been reviewed, while they received technical assistance since 2000 to conduct their own reviews, and the use of regional reviews has also been introduced, in order to highlight challenges to trade policy from a regional perspective. Nevertheless, the participation of a majority of WTO’s members remains negligible. Mr. Ghosh estimated that an average LDC has participated only in three meetings, and the likelihood that they will ask a question or raise a point is only 2%. The reasons for this may include questions of maintaining preferences with richer trading partners, other meetings of more immediate importance occurring at the same time as the review meetings, or the lack of technical expertise of developing countries to understand the policies of their trading partners and ask pertinent questions. The outcome of this trend is that developing countries remain with few possible avenues to demand any policy correction. The implications for developing countries range from magnified informational problems, to widening information and analysis gaps between small and large developing countries, as well as emergence of developing country coalitions that continue to be constrained by limited technical expertise.

3. The capacity-building function, Dr. Carolyn Deere

Dr. Deere spoke of the broad political consensus with regard to the assistance required by developing countries to maximize the gains of their participation in the WTO. The rationale for the trade-related technical assistance and capacity building program (TACB) was to empower developing countries to engage more effectively in the multilateral trading system so that they reap a fair share of its political and social gains. In this respect, the TACB program focuses on fore core priorities: building supply-side capacity to benefit from new international trade opportunities, supporting the institutional infrastructure to implement WTO agreements, development-oriented legal and policy assistance to revise laws in order to meet WTO obligations, and also supporting strengthened participation in negotiations and decision-making processes. Since 1995, both the scale and the scope for TACB have expanded significantly. Nevertheless, some outstanding challenges remain, related to the fact that TACB is a donor-driven program. The first challenge pertains to the fact that there is a donor control over the resources. Indeed, despite a large increase in funding for TACB since 2002, resources still fall short of that which developing countries actually need to obtain benefits from their WTO participation. There is also an uneven commitment to multilateral TACB initiatives, as developed countries usually prefer bilateral agreements. Furthermore, TACB financing is subject to the vagaries of donor’s changing trade and foreign policy priorities; the reality is that most developed countries allocate resources according to their own national priorities. A second challenge is coordination and ownership constraints at the National level. This includes managing TACB from a host of different donors and dealing with short-term aid instead of long-term investments.

During the roundtable discussion, Ambassador Ismail commented on the importance of coalitions and the need for coherence in the WTO capacity-building process. He also said with regard to the TPRM, that it is also important that developed countries act as they should and respect their obligations vis-à-vis developing countries. Ambassador Maruping also commented on the TPR and said that it was imperative for the WTO to maintain its relevance. Ambassador Valles commented on the purpose of coalition formation, which he said was to establish an agenda that will benefit developing countries, as well as provide information and transparency. Mr. Jara spoke of strengthening negotiation power through coalition building, and suggested that the TPR should be open to the public in order to improve it. He also stated that the deficit in subsidies notification affects the developing countries in upholding their rights, and that capacity-building lacks resources. Lastly, Mr. Désir suggested to set up a parliamentary assembly in the WTO in order to facilitate understanding between the North and the South.

A series of questions were then taken up from the audience.

Restoring Morality to the Global Market

The workshop was made up of moderator Mr. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, professor of international political economy at the IMD and founding Director of The Evian Group; Mr. Ravi Kanth Devarakonda, Geneva editor of the Washington Trade Daily and Deccan Herald; Ms. Ximena Escobar de Nogales, Deputy Director and senior economic counselor at CASIN; H. E. Ms. Gail Mathurin, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Jamaica; Mr. Aldo Matteuci, Senior fellow at the DiploFoundation.

Mr. Lehmann made some introductory remarks. He said that the global market economy hosts many injustices, and that the Doha Round was an opportunity to redress some of these injustices. He also commented on the importance of building coalitions in order to restore morality to the global market.

Mr. Matteuci’s presentation focused on the laws that govern the market, and not vice-versa. He reminded the audience that even Adam Smith’s economical theory of the invisible hand contained an element of morality to it.

Ms. Escobar de Nogales talked about consumer behavior. In particular, she focused on the importance of consumer behavior for developing countries and stated that the consumer must have an active morality in order to make a difference on the global market.

Mr. Devarakonda concentrated on the issue of patented drugs. He affirmed that two billion people lack access to essential medication at the moment, but the market was the ultimate arbitrator of price setting. This caused a moral dilemma, in the sense that people are dying because they do not have access to medicines, but these are protected by patents in Western countries in order to stimulate innovation. The current system of Compulsory License Mechanism tries to deal with this issue, but developing countries are sometimes prevented from using it, due to pressure from the drugs industry. So the question remained on how could one redress morality in this context. Mr. Devarakonda suggested to set up a global public pact, that would provide a code of conduct for extreme situations, where the market alone cannot be the sole decider.

Ambassador Mathurin’s intervention was concerned with who’s morality should guide the global market.

A series of questions were then taken up from the audience.

Coherent Strategies for Trade Liberalization – Bottom-up policies regional agreements and the WTO-system compatibility

The Session was composed of Moderator Mr. Frederik Erixon, Director of the ECIPE; Dr. Razeen Sally, Director ECIPE; Professor Patrick Messerlin, form the Groupe Economie Mondiale, Sciences po Paris; Mr. Huang Rengang, Minister Counsellor of China to the WTO; and Mr. Roderick Abbott, former Deputy Director-General of the WTO.

Mr Erixon made some opening remarks by asking whether there were some direct or indirect effects of different types of liberalization on the WTO system and what could one make of the new phenomenon of autonomous liberalization.

Dr Sally discussed medium-term strategic issues, including the multilateralization of regional agreements, the usefulness of having some rules agenda, as well as the acceleration of unilateral liberalization, particularly in Asia. He noted three changes from the GATT to the WTO: the agenda has broadened and deepened in scope, decision-making has widened beyond the original restricted club, and the WTO has become politicized by governments and infiltrated by anti-market NGOs. His conclusions for the mid-term future were that there should not be anymore WTO global rounds in the future, but only standalone negotiations, that special and differential treatment could not be left undifferentiated, and finally, that there should be a shift of focus from market access issues to rules issues.

Mr. Rengang began his presentation by reminding the audience that his country’s accession negotiations lasted fifteen years. He then discussed how the WTO system has helped China open up to international trade, to the point that its partners are now complaining that China is over-liberalizing, by exporting too much. Mr. Rengang also talked of the WTO system as a non-universal system, as many important countries such as Russia were not included in it, so its rule of law was limited in promoting trade liberalization. With regard to the Doha Round, the conclusion of the negotiations was not foreseen for the near future, so there was a strong probability that unilateral, bilateral and regional agreements were to continue as trade liberalization alternatives. He also discussed China’s policy of reducing tariffs on environment oriented imports before an actual binding agreement was reached in the negotiations, as a measure to maintain the coherence of the system.

Professor Messerlin pointed out that liberalization in the past few years happened mostly on a unilateral basis. He discussed the lack of leadership in international trade, and explained it through a more hostile public opinion, stronger anti-trade lobbies, and more absent businesses.

Mr. Abbott talked about regional agreements and the threat they represent to the multilateral system. He argued that the WTO system was not a universal one, pointing out to the exceptions provided in article 24, the provisions for weavers and the special regimes for developing countries. He therefore concluded that one should not be troubled if such great quantity of regional agreements are being negotiated. With regard to regional agreements, Mr. Abbott said that they were discriminatory, long-lasting and creating loopholes to WTO rules. He concluded his statement reiterating that it was a good idea to pursue multilateral negotiations and agreements in the future.

Globalization and the WTO Doha Agenda: Impact on Development

Speakers included Mr. Martin Khor, from the Third World Network; Mr. Mehdi Shafaeddin, former Senior Economist at UNCTAD; Ms. Anne Kamau, from the Permanent Mission of Kenya at the UN; H. E. Mr. Oscar Carvallo, Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela at the UN; and H. E. Ms. Gail Mathurin, Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of Jamaica to the UN.

The general discussion was centered on the issues contributing to the current deadlock in the Doha negotiations, namely agricultural issues, where developing countries have agreed to cut their tariffs further than in the Uruguay Round; industrial tariffs and the introduction of the Swiss standard formula, which means that developing countries have to reduce their tariffs much more than developed countries; negotiations on services; and the development issues, which have been left for the end of the Round, if time remains.

The discussion focused specifically on the development implications of industrial tariff cuts. It was argued that the contradictions in design and implementation of WTO rules and the inconsistencies between the Doha text and developed countries’ proposals triggered much of the current turmoil in the negotiations. The introduction of the Swiss formula in particular, went against the developing countries’ interests, while serving those of developed countries. The former would be subject to much greater tariff reduction rates, despite the fact that the principal of less than proportional reciprocity was agreed in Hong Kong. This would create significant detrimental long-term effects on the industrialization of developing countries, with no negative effects in the developed world, since industrialization has already occurred there. The developing world, by contrast, suffers from underdevelopment of its industrial sector. Thus, they need to apply higher tariffs to some of their industries, particularly new ones. Or with the low tariffs rates proposed, this will disarm them of an important policy tool for establishing new industries and upgrading old ones. The implications of such low and bound tariffs include the locking of the structure of production of most developing countries into primary commodities, simple resource-based and labor intensive products. The conclusion of the discussion highlighted the fact that development should not be sacrificed for the sake of reaching an agreement in the multilateral arena, nor should developing countries accept to be bullied into unfair trade agreements at the bilateral level.

R. M.

samedi 20 octobre 2007

International Trade Centre
UNCTAD/WTO
17th October
Consultations with ITC partner countries: Asia and the Pacific


The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 3 or 4 issues in process by the ITC.

The JAG objectives, format and content:
For the next JAG it is intended to have a short meeting before, more compact than the one of April 2007. ITC is trying to fix a 2 years budget for the next JAG. The main item is to review and approve the consolidation programme. There will be an informal meeting on Monday 19th of November to give fuller update about the changes and evolution of ITC.



Governance issue: proposals:
- the JAG as the policy-making organ of ITC for substantive programme review and policy guidance should convene a meeting once a year;
- the JAG will convert the actual consultative committee into a Consultative Board: more compact and informal body, focusing on the Annual Report, limited membership: 10 to 12, one representative per major region and one representative from UNCTAD and WTO, the role will be to advise ITC on programme, financial and evaluation matters;
- members should meet at least twice a year;
- Trust Fund Management

After these two issues where presented the Chair gave the floor to Cuba. The representative wanted to have more details about the Consultative Board. The Chair answered that the board will be rotative but a region can chooses to keep the same representative.
Pakistan asked where the members would meet and the response was Geneva or Montreux.
India asked whether the Consultative Board will provide technical advice to the JAG. YES but it’s not the main mission. The role of the Consultative Committee was to manage the Global Trust Fund which convenes 6 issues, and now the Board, at the will of a lot of members States is now broader.



We then went on another issue. ITC’s proposed budget for 2008-2009:
There is no major change between the last biennial budget. ITC has 2 main sources of revenue: Regular Budget (48% UN and WTO) and Extra-Budgetary (52% donors).

The aim of ITC is to reach at least 2% increase. They will suppress (retirement) some posts and create others of a lower level.

ITC depends a lot on Extra-Budgetary resources.



Challenges and ITC’s response for Asia & the Pacific:
- Highlights of the regions:
o 8.3 % growth for the first half of 2007.
o Agricultural commodities are the main export sector.
o Textiles and clothing are predominant.

- Core Trade Challenges:
o On a Micro-level, there is a limited capacity of enterprises:
Inadequate diversification of the export base,
Lack of management skills,
Limited knowledge of the implications.
o On a Meso-level
Inability of trade support institutions to adjust to evolving needs for business
Equipping TSI’s to cater trade needs of SME’s.
o On a Macro-level
Insufficient business dimension in trade negotiations
Building Public-Private Partnership s for trade development.

- Current and future projects:
o National project in Bangkok, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam…
o Initiatives in 14 countries.


o Projects in Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand
o EC funded projects in Bangladesh, Bhutan.


Ismaila Pedro FAYE
Meeting of the ISDR Support Group
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
Wednesday, 10 Oct. 07

Mr. Carlos Foradori from Argentina the Chairman of the ISDR Support Group started the meeting by doing a brief statement introduction about the recent developments of ISDR Secretariat.

According to him it’s very important to have initiatives at the regional level. He points out example of Guatemala’s initiative to coordinate actions in Haiti and the Buenos Aires meeting. He also asks for the support of the United Nations, UNICE and the Red Cross. He then gave the floor to Mr. Salvano Briceno, Director of ISDR Secretariat.

He informed that the Report of the ISDR has been published today (10 Oct. 07) and pointed out the major issues and recommendations.

- The need to support countries efforts:
- support the development of national platforms: it is already been done but it’s not sufficient.
- Investment must increase: common policies are needed.
- Accountability system is needed, one must keep monitoring the countries.
- Supporting the countries efforts is a key role for the private sector.

- The program focuses on:
- Special IPCC report on adaptation, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.
- Cities need multi-sectoral plan including safe hospitals.
- Critical assessment of economic and social cost and benefits of risk reduction.
- The increasing participation of the civil society.
- Participation of women and leadership of women.
- Scale up proven practices based on science and technical date knowledge
- Regional cooperation: there will be an Asian Conference at the initiative of India on November 7th and 8th.
- Multi-stake holder voluntary guidelines and good practices.

- The ISDR system is also developing itself in:
- Engaging developmental, environmental and humanitarian partnership: more efforts are needed.
- Using UN trust fund for Disaster Reduction to support Joint Work Program
- Following up, reporting and monitoring.
- Preparing itself for the Global Platform of 2009

Mr. Briceno then putted forward the ISDR System Management Oversight Board. There are 6 Partner members of the UN which are: UNDP, World Bank, UNEP, OCHA, Red Cross, and ??? (Missed the last one). The issues discussed by the MOB are the following:

- follow-up of Global Platform. (- ISDR System Joint Working Program, - Economic study on cost/benefit).
- Disaster Risk Reduction is a UN priority.
- Global Survey on early warming.
- Global assessment Report for Disaster Risk Reduction 2009.

Mr. Salvano Briceno then talked about the Joint Planning of Work for 2008-2009. The Hyogo framework is a priority for action guides planning. One should build on existing mechanism, link them up and not create new ones. And he then let the floor to Mr. Reid Blaster who talked about what the General Assembly discussions focussed on:
- Climate change and disaster risk reduction: the scientific evidence is clear and
- Shift from “debate” to action.
- Multiply sources of action : local government, cities, business, NGOs
- Climate is now a priority for Ban Ki Moon and the UN.
- Special events at the UN GA.
- Adaptation issues edging into view.

There is a link between climate and Disasters: climate accounts for 80 to 90% of all disasters, floods account for the half of all disasters, for 84% of death and for 50 billions of lost per annum.

The specific priorities for the Secretary General are:
- Create and advocate clear messages.
- Promote Disaster Risk Reduction and Hyogo framework post 2012 regime.
- Seek IPCC Special Report to fill gap on climate change and disaster risk link.
- Build advocacy, tools and coorfination in ISDR system’s Joint Working Program.
- Support national level linking of climate change and disaster risk agendas.

After this briefings, the Chairman gave the floor to the delegations for their remarks and questions about the issue.

Norway asked whether ISDR is a strategy, a forum, an organisation, a program under the umbrella of OCHA? And also how do ISDR controls the direction of the money?
Mr. Foradori answered that ISDR is program of the UN Secretariat but it’s also under the umbrella of DESA (?) and is administrated by OCHA. All the funds come from humanitarian sources and is then not enough. As for the control, the fund is given to ISDR who gives it to the International Organisations and follows up so that the money is used for the original purpose. He also reminded that China and the Netherlands where good donors.

Sweden informed their will be a Commission of 12 members (didn’t mentioned them) this autumn, that will work for 1 year and a half and that will present a final report of climate and disaster risk.

Maldives asked what was ISDR planning during the Bali Conference. Mr. Foradori answered that their will be side meetings in Bali under the framework of IPCC and added that ISDR will take part of the Nairobi Action Plan adopted.

India reminded the need for coordination among different sources of fund and UN.

Switzerland and Finland closed the debate saying their were very keen on integrating ISDR on the UN budget.


Ismaila Pedro FAYE