Update on NAMA 2010 Feb
mani candan
Dear Friends
As you aware the key WTO members have started technical work in Geneva from the first week of February 2010 to sort out the critical issues that are blocking the conclusion of Doha round of trade talks. In February negotiators are discussing on Agriculture and NAMA and in March they will discuss on IPR, technology transfer, trade in goods and trade facilitation issues. It is also reported that the negotiators are preparing ground for a high-level stalk taking meeting in the month of March 2010. For details see: http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/31122006/Threemonth-long--Doha-trade-t.html
For updates on the discussions in the past week on NAMA negotiations please see below -the information circulated by Busser Esther from ITUC.
Regards
Mani.
From: Busser, Esther <esther...@ituc-csi.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Subject: [NAMAUNIONS] FW: WTO/NAMA
To: NAMAU...@listserver.citizen.org
FYI
Best,
Esther
Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-agricultural products (NAMA)
NAMA week 2-5 February 2010
(for background use only)
As in previous sessions, this NAMA week was devoted to trying to achieve convergence on different proposals concerning NTBs, in particular:
- NTBs pertaining to Standards, Technical Regulations and Conformity Assessment Procedures for Automotive Products (Autos TBT-related NTBs)
- Electronics TBT-related NTBs
- Horizontal Mechanism (for solving NTB related problems)
- Remanufactured goods, and
- Textile labelling
On the Autos TBT-related NTBs (proposals TN/MA/W/120 and 126 by the US and TN/MA/W/118/Rev.1 by the EU), there has not been much progress despite a "non-paper" by the European Union presented as an "Agreement" in legal language, and that according to the EU incorporates members' suggestions. The EU tries to solve the problem of the divergence in standards in the auto industry that prevents any car built in one country from being sold in another without modifications for the specific market.
The US considers the proposal "unrealistic" and is concerned that this proposal tries to replace its own standards and, in general, deprives members of following their own standards. Japan defends the different standards and regulations because they are adapted to different realities in different countries: geography, climate, density of population, etc.; Korea considers the EU proposal as "too ambitious", and for Canada it has fundamental implications for the TBT Agreement. The chair said that one fundamental question is the level of ambition. Or put it differently, how far do we want to go in having a TBT-plus on the question of standard setting.
On the Electronics-related NTBs, (Annex 5 (XI) by the US, and Annex 5 (VI) by the EU, of TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3 and TN/MA/W/119 and 129), there was a lengthy technical discussion on the scope, the standards, the conformity assessment and the transparency provisions, based on a new merged text, submitted by Canada, that would incorporate members proposals and concerns. Substantive different still remain between the EU and the US in particular on what kind of standards to be used.
On the Horizontal Mechanism, (to solve problems associated with NTBs without the need to go to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism),(TN/MA/W/106 in Annex 5 (I) of TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3), the US does not want such a mechanism, although mindful of the strong support for it among the membership has submitted texts to try to dilute the EU and others' proposal. A new revised text for a "Ministerial decision on procedures for the facilitation of solutions to Non-tariff Barriers" (TN/MA//106/Rev.1) was submitted by the African Group, Canada, European Union, LDC Group, NAMA-11, Group of Developing Countries, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan and Switzerland. This text tries to clarify the issue of the relation of these "procedures" with the Dispute Settlement (not to be used as a first step to a Dispute Settlement case), and concerns about confidentiality and transparency. The US is still not convinced and continues to favour a "committee first approach", by which problems should be taken to the respective committees and solved there. Another issue is the scope of the mechanism, that Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei among others consider it should not apply to SPS, despite the fact that fish and other products are included in the negotiation as "Non-agriculture". The chair said that the first conceptual difficulty is whether we want a fast sailing boat (pragmatism) or a huge aircraft carrier that incorporates all the legal considerations (perfection).
On the Remanufactured goods, a proposal by the US, Japan and Switzerland (TN/MA/W/18/Add.16/Rev.3 and TN/MA/W/124). This is a proposal for a work programme in the CTG (Council for Trade in Goods) for the purpose of discussing members progress in reducing or eliminating NTBs in this area. Some developing countries remain unconvinced of the need for a work programme, the legal definition to adopt for these kind of goods, and the supposed benefits for them. Rather they see it as a way to "dump waste" from developed countries on them or as unfair form of trade. But there has been good progress for the acceptance of a work programme on this issue.
On labelling of textiles, clothing, footwear and travel goods (TN/MA/W/93/Rev.1 and W/123), a proposal by EU, Mauritius, Sri Lanka and the US, the issue is what information to include, why this and not that, is it trade restrictive or not. Some developing countries are not convinced about their interest in this issue but nevertheless the proposal has more consensus than the others and, according to the chair, the group is close to a text-based negotiation.
Also today, Argentina and Brazil introduced a new paper entitled "Understanding to facilitate the implementation of the TBT Agreement as applied to trade in the chemical products sector" (TN/MA/W/135). Six members reacted favourably to this document that will be further discussed at the next NAMA week in mid March.
Summing up, the chairman, ambassador Luzius Wasescha, of Switzerland, said, at a press briefing, that members are very engaged in this negotiation, make proposals and react to other members' proposals, and the Group is "moving forward slowly but surely".
END
For background:
The mandate of the negotiations, the chair's latest text on the overall negotiation and other background details can be found here:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/markacc_e/markacc_chair_texts07_e.htm
(NTB proposals are listed in annex 5 of the chair's text)