The Doha round of trade liberalisation talks seems to have received a fillip in recent weeks. In the last 10 days, World Trade Organisation Director General Pascal Lamy has outlined the road-map to try to conclude the talks next year, the latest in the many deadlines fixed by world leaders over the last eight years. In an e-mailed interview with Sidhartha, the former European trade commissioner explains the challenges ahead. Excerpts:
Has the change from Kamal Nath to Anand Sharma made any difference to India’s position?
It's not so much that the positions have changed. Since the US and Indian elections, there seems to be a different atmosphere surrounding the talks, a willingness on both sides to look at different ways of tackling the outstanding differences.
Are you seeing some progress on substance, beyond the statement of intent from countries such as India?
While the mood music has changed, we still have to get down to working the details. Political directions have been sent by world leaders to conclude the round in 2010 and this is encouraging. What we need to see now is that political impetus being translated into action at the negotiating table. WTO members have agreed to accelerate work across all areas of the negotiation as from the beginning of September. We have established a solid work programme for the autumn, shifting work to a higher gear. I hope the Ministerial gathering in Delhi at the beginning of September and the G20 in Pittsburgh can carry on the momentum. Governments are also trying to establish how they can give the talks the push they need.
Since the talks collapsed a year ago, which areas are you noticing progress?
Crucially, the political support is far greater now than it has been the past 12 months. Substantively, things have cooked rather nicely in areas such as anti-dumping, fisheries, subsidies, trade facilitation or trade and environment though there remains work to be done. The gaps and what still needs to be done is becoming clearer.
What is the position with the US?
US ambassador (Ron) Kirk has indicated in many forums recently that the US wants a successful conclusion to the Doha Round and that it is prepared to work for it. The administration says it wants to build a package to be presented for approval by the US Congress which has the last word on trade.
They have accelerated their bilateral contacts with key players in a bid to gain greater understanding of what is achievable. They have also indicated their readiness to move the talks in all fronts. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we will know in the autumn how far we can move forward.
There is a view that the trade talks will not move till the global economy starts growing again. Is that a fair assessment?
Yes, I have heard that argument and you are right to suggest that from a domestic political point of view, further trade opening in the form of greater competition on some sectors and more markets for others, may seem difficult at this juncture. But it is precisely now that reviving and facilitating trade can act as a stimulus for global recovery. As a result of the collapse in demand created by the financial crisis, trade is predicted to collapse by 10 per cent this year. This is very bad news for many economies that had used trade as an engine for growth and development. It is these same economies that today are working to fend off protectionism and are advocating a rapid conclusion of the Doha Round. Waiting for the crisis to disappear to conclude the Doha Round would mean depriving the world economy of a powerful engine for recovery.
Is there a growing frustration among countries since the Doha round of trade talks have dragged on for almost eight years now?
The last Round, concluded in 1995, took almost eight years to conclude. If we consider that this time the number of WTO members have significantly increased and that there are more topics in the agenda, I am not surprised that the talks take long to conclude. However, we should not be complacent. We are now in the midst of a global economic crisis without precedent and we need to ensure that all engines of world growth are turned on as soon as possible.
The focus seems to be first on agriculture and industry before talks on areas such as services and rules are taken up. WTO has planned the Nama (non-agricultural market access) week in September and work on services in October. Will you be able to still call it a development round by the time talks conclude?
Two-thirds of WTO members are developing countries, therefore there is no question that Doha will be a development round, otherwise there will be no round. Furthermore, the development component is present in all areas of the negotiation, including on rules or on services. Today, India is as interested in a solid outcome on services as is the European Union or the USA. Brazil and China are as interested in a solid outcome on rules as Japan or Australia. Development in the Doha Round is not just an after-thought: it permeates the entire agenda.
By delinking services and rules from talks on Nama and agriculture, you are asking members to make a trade-off between industry and the farm sector and that may not result in a balanced outcome for developing and least developed countries. Is it a fair criticism?
This is why members have agreed to accelerate work in the other areas so that by the time we are ready to establish agriculture and Nama modalities, we have a clear picture of the outcome in the other areas as well. This is what is meant by “no surprises”.
While you have been optimistic on concluding talks, members have not helped you achieve the task. In addition to the roadmap outlined last month, what are you doing to ensure that 2010 is not another deadline that is going to be missed?
In the Doha Round, what counts is not what the WTO Director-General wants or says. It is what WTO members do. World leaders have set 2010 as the date for concluding the round. My job is to remind them that to get there on time they need to start walking the talk now. I have already told them that in September I intend to begin a more horizontal process where they can discuss all issues under negotiation in some sort of grand bargain.
Can you elaborate on the “horizontal processes to address political sensitivities” that you intend to put in place from September onwards?
Members have indicated that they want to see the emergence of all the elements of a global deal so that there will be no surprises in the last minute. This means that there must be opportunities to address all issues on the table together, and not just each one on its silo. We need to move to the kitchen table and start preparing the final Doha meal.
What are you going to focus on when you meet trade ministers from key member countries in India?
I am going to do what I always do – make the case that concluding this round by the end of next year will be in the interests of all. I will explain how our agenda will unfold in Geneva in the coming months and what I intend to say to the G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh. I will, of course, also listen carefully to ministers’ concerns and see what means can be found for addressing them.
