Inside US Trade | November 9, 2001
The latest draft language on market access for industrial goods in a declaration to be agreed by World Trade Organization ministers at Doha leaves out a phrase that U.S. business sources opposed because it would have allowed "less than full reciprocity" for developing countries in tariff negotiations. But the new language in the Oct. 27 draft points to a 1979 decision on special and differential treatment for developing countries that in its effect is similar to the earlier language that was such a problem for U.S. industry.
Business sources cheered the new formulation in the Oct. 27 draft from WTO General Council Chair Stuart Harbinson, which agrees to negotiations to reduce or eliminate tariffs, "particularly on products of export interest to developing countries." They said the phrase that had been struck would have skewed tariff negotiations in favor of developing countries, and in particular may have excluded the possibility of "zero-for-zero" negotiations which some U.S. exporters favor. Zero-for-zero means that countries could agree reciprocally to completely eliminate tariffs in certain sectors.
But the market access paragraph also contains a reference to another part of the declaration, which states that negotiations shall take into account the 1979 Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries. That decision states, "The developed countries do not expect reciprocity for commitments made by them in trade negotiations to reduce or remove tariffs and other barriers to the trade of developing countries..."
One U.S. business source downplayed this link, saying the absence of language in the paragraph itself on "less than full reciprocity" was already a victory. Business groups had lobbied U.S. agencies intensely, including USTR, Commerce and State, to have that language struck.
Business groups were unsuccessful, however, in having specific language included in the declaration on sectoral initiatives. The current version in paragraph 40 provides that early agreements on individual issues may be implemented provisionally, or apart from the single undertaking, and this leaves the door open for possible early sectoral agreements, according to an industry source.
Meanwhile, sub-Saharan African nations have proposed that tariff negotiations be put off, and that instead a study process be launched to evaluate the likely effects of those talks on developing countries.
According to a proposal tabled Nov. 2 by Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe, "It would be premature to begin a process of negotiations before the study process is completed. Therefore, negotiations in this area should not be launched at the Fourth Ministerial, but should await the conclusions drawn from the study process."
Their proposal for further study before moving forward on tariff negotiations was also backed by India at an Oct. 31 General Council in Geneva.
Despite these signals, most trade sources consider it very likely that tariff negotiations will be launched at Doha, and say the controversy over market access is likely to be limited compared to more hot-button issues such as TRIPS and health and WTO rules.Inside US Trade:
