I would like to direct my remarks to presenting some NGO perspectives on the idea of creating a Parliamentary Assembly, or some sort of forum for parliamentarians at the WTO.

However, I should make clear at the outset that, from an NGO point of view, adding a parliamentary dimension to the WTO is but one among many reforms needed in order to make the WTO more accountable to the world's citizens.

From a civil society perspective, there are important gains to be made in securing from governments agreement on improving a range of NGO participation rights at the WTO. These have become well known to many: things like observer rights at meetings, timely access to documents, opportunities to intervene in the work of WTO tribunals, etc. 

However, these are short term, more immediate objectives, which have an upper ceiling on the extent to which they contribute to democratization and accountability. Adding a parliamentary dimension on the other hand is a longer term project, but one with a greater payoff in terms of making global governance on trade and trade-related issues more democratically accountable. 

From an NGO perspective - at least the perspective of NGOs with a serious interest in reform of the WTO - these two goals (NGO access rights and adding a parliamentary dimension) are complementary. And I would go further to suggest that, when it comes to creating a parliamentary forum at the WTO, NGOs and parliamentarians can, and should, find common cause. Both have an interest in creating a parliamentary forum, though clearly parliamentarians must take the lead.

In my conversations with NGO colleagues there is a guarded support for a WTO PA -- agreement that the idea makes sense in principle, but also a fear that parliamentarians might be co-opted in the 'selling'  of WTO decisions and agreements without also fully taking up their responsibilities to undertake deliberative and oversight functions. Therefore, NGO support for - and constructive assistance in creating - a WTO parliamentary body is not unconditional. There is a very real sense in which NGOs will support a parliamentary body which is effective and independent, but can also be relied upon to criticize a weak parliamentary forum.

There is not time to go too deeply into some of the specifics of what, from an NGO perspective, would characterize an effective parliamentary forum for the WTO. Briefly, I would note following:

 1) No one expects that we are creating a parliamentary chamber with legislative powers. The WTO PA will be at the outset, a consultative body.

 2) The WTO PA must be a permanent, standing body. It would not do for the WTO and member governments to convene one-off "meetings" of parliamentarians whenever they sense pressure from a critical public and want a quick fix to shore up their democratic bona fides.

 3) Representation in a WTO PA should not mirror the one representative per state model which we find in the WTO itself. Representation should be based primarily on a formula which reflects the distribution of the worlds population.

 4) The WTO PA should not ultimately be house within a larger pre-existing inter-parliamentary organization. As a body of parliamentarians representing citizens, such a parliament represents the idea that a world citizenry, a Demos, exists and should play a role in WTO affairs, as a complement to fora where decisions are taken on the basis of bargaining among nation states. To do this it must not only adopt a meaningful agenda, but be seen to be doing so. Burying a WTO parliamentary body within a large inter-parliamentary organization would be a disservice. There may be merit in considering at the initial stage proposals which, for reasons of cost-saving and practicability, place the WTO forum, or initial organizing efforts, within a larger inter-parliamentary association. But such proposals should be carefully considered and must serve only as transitional arrangements on the road to creating an independent standing body of parliamentarians alongside the WTO.

 5) Lastly, the WTO must adopt a meaningful and progressive agenda. It should be free to debate not only matters on the agenda of the WTO itself, but also the range of trade related issues which have for good reason aroused concern among NGOs and broad sections of public opinion. These include the 'social agenda', trade and environment, trade and development, trade and rights.  In so doing it will also contribute useful perspectives on important coherence issues -- the interface between WTO and other international organizations and multilateral agreements.

And we can also expect that a WTO PA will play a role similar to that played by this parliament in the EU context - that, is to be a catalyst for further reforms, a hothouse for nurturing important ideas for strengthening global governance, not least of which will be the strengthening of the role of the parliament itself. 

Beyond these benchmarks for an effective WTO parliamentary body, I'd like to comment on practical ways of moving this idea forward. If it is true that the strongest advocates are among the ranks of parliamentarians and civil society, it's probably no secret that persons employed in trade bureaucracies are less inclined to welcome the idea. That's certainly been my experience in Canada. 

What this means, in practical terms, is that there is an organizational and administrative problem. The WTO PA idea needs an administrative home, a secretariat, a base from which to mobilize broader networks and create a broad-based critical mass of support. For the recently created FIPA (the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas) that organizational base was the Center for Promotion of Democracy within the OAS.

This organizational problem may be one area where NGOs can do practical work to support the efforts of parliamentarians. One possibility in this regard is the suggestion from some European NGOs to convene regional meetings to cultivate interest among legislators in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The notion of a parliamentary form at the WTO is an important and timely idea. But ideas don't work unless we do. This meeting certainly is a very large step in moving the idea forward. I congratulate the organizers and look forward o working with you in future. 

Thank you.