I. Introduction

There has been a growing realization of the importance of international trading rules, particularly since the third WTO Ministerial in Seattle. Within Canada hardly a day passes that there hasn’t been a story in the news of a trade dispute affecting the lives of hundreds if not thousands of Canadians. The promise of a fair rules based trading system has strong appeal for many Canadians.

Globally this realization has led to a loud public demand for both more information about and more opportunity to influence the formation of these rules. The intensity of these calls has led to a serious challenge to the credibility of the institutions associated with these rules, particularly the World Trade Organization. The WTO has slowly responded to these pressures by providing more information (e.g. via an excellent on-line documents facility) and more opportunities for dialogue (e.g. holding of public symposia). These actions are consistent with the 1996 General Council’s “Guidelines for Arrangements on Relations with Non-Governmental Organizations” (WT/L/162).

As part of the expanding dialogue, the WTO hosted its seventh public symposium in Geneva between April 29 and May 1, 2002. Called “The Doha Development Agenda and Beyond”, the symposium addressed a wide range of WTO-related issues including several workshops on development-related topics. The inclusion of the development related discussions was highly significant, given the sometimes congruent but often conflicting aspects of trade liberalization and development, particularly poverty reduction.

Last year, the WTO Secretariat commissioned the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to produce a summary report of the 2001 Symposium. This year, the Secretariat has foregone a formal report of the proceedings and has made available most Symposium papers (including summary reports prepared by the organizers of various events), presentations, and photographs of discussants directly on the WTO website[1].

What follows is a report on this event prepared by two Canadian NGO participants, Fergus Watt of the World Federalists and Stuart Clark of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. It has been prepared in response to a request from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and is intended to capture both the highlights of the event as well as the responses to the event from Canadians who attended. Given the comprehensive program, detailed coverage of every workshop offered was not feasible.

The content and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect official Canadian policy.

II. Structure of the Event

In reviewing and evaluating the meeting, it is important to consider carefully what it was designed to achieve, and what it was not designed to achieve; not just what it was, but what it was not. Civil society organizations (CSOs) have frequently criticized the WTO for its lack of transparency. Numerous studies have confirmed that, on the basis of some fundamental criteria, (observer rights, access to meeting space, timely access to information, ability to propose agenda items and circulate documents, role in decision making, participation in debates, etc.) the WTO is among the world's least transparent international organizations.

This symposium was not designed to respond to those concerns in a detailed or direct way. It was intended to provide a forum for dialogue among a range of WTO stakeholders, including government representatives. If the meeting is understood as simply a forum for dialogue, with no expected outcome, product, or decisions to be taken, then on these terms it can fairly be said to have succeeded. The meeting was more than a public relations exercise for the WTO; the dialogue was two-way. And the topics covered were (with a few exceptions, noted below) relevant, important and representative of the broader discourse in the world community regarding the work of the organization in the post-Doha context.

Another important difference this year was the decision to allow civil society organizations to organize many of the working sessions. Overall, the symposium consisted of opening and closing plenary sessions and 16 working sessions. Of the 16 workshops, five were organized by the WTO. The opportunity to organize workshops was not unqualified, however. Some workshop topics were out of bounds. For example, some delegates suggest that the WTO would not contemplate a session on "Trade and Human Rights." Other workshop organizers came under pressure to modify the content of their sessions.

Approximately 750 persons attended the symposium, an amount equalling capacity of the largest plenary hall. Organizers closed registration ten days prior to the meeting. Delegates were drawn from the ranks of non-governmental organizations, the business community, academia, the media, parliamentarians, WTO officials and the diplomatic community. Canadian participants numbered approximately 28, including approximately 19 from civil society, eight government officials (four federal, four provincial) and one parliamentarian. According to many Canadians at the meeting, the business community was under-represented. Also, many of the WTO's most vocal critics from civil society organizations were not at the meeting. Not unexpectedly, most participants were European; there were disproportionately few delegates from developing countries.

Regarding participation on panels, last year's symposium was criticized for not including enough speakers reflecting a developing country perspective. This situation was improved this year, although many of these "southern voices" were representatives of northern-based NGOs, or members of southern country diasporae. Last year's symposium was also criticized for not including enough female speakers. This year the lack of gender balance among panellists was particularly evident. Less than fifteen percent of speakers on workshop and plenary panels were female.

Canadians participating as discussants or chairs in specific sessions include: David Runnalls, International Institute for Sustainable Development, chairing, and Martin Loken, from the Canadian Mission in Geneva presenting, during the session on “An Emerging Southern Agenda on Trade and Environment;” Caroline Emond, Dairy Farmers of Canada, presenting in the session on Dumping and the WTO - food security implications; and Janine Ferretti of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation who spoke at the panel on “Lessons Learned from Relations Between International Organizations and Civil Society.”

III. Opening Session

The opening session of the symposium appeared to be structured as a debate between the supporters and opponents of trade liberalization. Were the situation in fact so polarized, which is not the case at this time, such a debate might be very constructive. As it turned out the ‘pro’ side was made up of speakers who oversimplified and, in some cases, used incredible data to denigrate the positions held by many responsible critics. The presentations of Professor Bjorn Lomborg and Professor Jagdish Bhagwati were extreme examples of this posture while the Director General of the WTO and Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo were more muted. The ‘con’ aspects of the debate, represented by Jeremy Hobbs of Oxfam and Tony Juniper of the Friends of the Earth, differed significantly in their postures (one more reformist, the other more abolitionist) and central concerns (the reduction of poverty vs the preservation of the environment). The additional comments offered by the Chinese Ambassador to the WTO, Mr Sun, were outside the main debate but, coming from the newest and largest member of the WTO, were carefully noted.

Key Points in the Presentations

§ All parties, including developing country members, to the new negotiations must ‘get something tangible and real’ or there will be no agreements. Critics must offer something more than descriptions of the problem. (Moore)

§ The current agreements reflect the ‘upside down’ world of northern governments that, while extolling the virtues of trade liberalization, engage in massively expensive protectionism. (Hobbs, Oxfam)

§ Progress on the development agenda will only be achieved if accompanied by progress on the new issues (investment, competition and environment) (Zedillo)

§ US implementation of the spirit of the Uruguay Round is necessary (China)

§ Pursuing anything other than a purely economic-focussed globally-based agreement will deprive the poor of the benefits of the 21^st Century (Lomburg)

§ Trade should be the sole focus of the WTO. Other institutions (World Bank) and NGOs should avoid ‘mission creep’ by taking on the more technical aspects of trade issues. (Bhagwati)

§ The impacts of trade liberalization, which should guide further reform, must be evaluated on more than economic indicators. Social and environmental impacts must also be included. (Juniper, Friends of the Earth)

IV. Workshops [2]

A. Development Opportunities from Doha

This session was chaired by former President of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo and offered an affirmation of the potential of further trade liberalization to generate growth in developing countries. The real debate was whether or not the actual direction of further trade liberalization will yield this result.

Key Points in the Presentations

§ The ‘trickle down’ principle doesn’t benefit the poor in the absence of specific policies which target benefits to them. (Oxfam)

§ If development gains are to be realized by developing countries, the system will need to provide significant non-reciprocal concessions to these countries. The experience to date has not shown the kind of development gains needed to generate popular support in developing countries. (Philippines)

§ Some of the development benefit of trade liberalization has been ‘stolen’ through widespread corruption. Many countries have indicated an interest in addressing this problem but only the WTO has the reach and relevant mandate to provide leadership in this area. (Transparency International)

B. Market Access – What’s at Stake

This workshop consisted of four disconnected presentations, and therefore was not an engaged debate among the panellists. Some good interventions from the floor sharpened the discussion. Discussants provided an overview of trends in global trade over the last two decades (See also “Market Access: Unfinished Business,” on WTO web site). Many noted trends in increasing developing country protectionism and the growing proportion of trade that is South-South. Christopher Padilla (Eastman Kodak) made a well-developed and compelling case for his “grand political bargain” leading to the elimination of all tariffs – a phased reduction to zero by 2020. The phased reduction by 2020 was explained lucidly and in great detail; he did not get drawn into speculating on scenarios for the kind of “grand political bargain” which would bring this about. Noreena Hertz pointed out that most countries all went through a protectionist phase.

Key Points in the Presentations

§ Professor Baghwati noted that simply increasing market access isn’t the only answer. Some developing countries can’t export even if the access is available. Does trade automatically lead to wealth? Not necessarily; Haiti, Jamaica and Sierra Leone are all free traders, but still poor (Hertz).

§ Different perspectives were presented on Pascal Lamy’s advocacy of “Multi-functionality” in agriculture (the notion that you can increase trade and preserve environment).

§ Trade liberalization needs to be accompanied by liberalization of labour mobility.

§ Public political pressure tends to favour protectionism over increased market access. Politicians have a role to play in educating publics.

C. The Role of Parliamentarians

WTO D-G Mike Moore chaired the session. He also takes a personal interest in the issue and said in his concluding remarks that he would be providing recommendations on the topic of the role of parliamentarians in notes for his successor. He apologized for the fact that more developing country parliamentarians could not have been brought in for this meeting. There were approximately 15 parliamentarians at the session, plus a large number of civil society participants. From Canada’s Parliament, Senator Peter Stollery, Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, took part in this session.

The session was intended to begin with two differing perspectives, but this “provocative debate” didn’t really materialize. Caroline Lucas, Member of European Parliament spoke to the need for a Parliamentary Assembly for the WTO. She reflected a position that has been adopted on the basis of all-party agreement in the European Parliament. She added some personal comments that reflected her vision of a stronger parliamentary assembly than the one envisioned by many European colleagues. A point of departure in her remarks was a paper (not strong enough in Lucas’s view) by former Canadian House of Commons Speaker John Bosley, which had been a reference document at a conference last year in the European Parliament in Brussels. A parliamentary assembly would provide a “democratically legitimate” oversight body for the WTO and would receive regular reports, present proposals and be a forum for scrutiny of trade and trade-related matters. New Zealand MP Lockwood Smith didn’t take up the question of a forum for parliamentarians at the WTO. Instead he focused on the roles of parliamentarians in national contexts. He spoke of the need to better educate themselves and their constituents regarding the costs and dangers of protectionism.

Some of the points which emerged in the discussion ~~period~~:

§ The U.S. Congress, in preparing for elections this year, has contributed significantly (fast track authority, steel antidumping, agriculture support policy) to recent difficulties implementing the Doha mandate.

§ Parliaments have important roles to play in passing implementing legislation and in ratification processes. Nevertheless, many parliamentarians said this was a pro forma function; that they would be unlikely to impede an agreement once it had been negotiated.

§ Just as there is a need for coherence between the WTO and other international organizations, parliamentarians are increasingly called upon to participate in parliamentary oversight bodies for a number of international organizations. The question of one body or a proliferation of parliamentary assemblies was raised.

§ The issue of the role of parliamentarians in the work of the WTO is not new. Declarations by parliamentarians meeting at the last two Ministerials were reviewed. The Seattle Declaration called explicitly for a parliamentary assembly. In Doha parliamentarians failed to get explicit language in the Ministerial Declaration calling for a greater role by parliaments. The Doha meeting of parliamentarians did mandate a process for further development of proposals for a parliamentary dimension for the WTO.

§ More so than the Doha meeting, this session reflected a sense that some sort of parliamentary dimension was necessary and inevitable. What would be the model?

§ A “Steering Group” under the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament is proceeding with plans for a major international conference on a parliamentary dimension for the WTO, to develop formal proposals for presentation at the next Ministerial (Westendorp, Lucas).

§ A number of participants, including Canadian Senator Peter Stollery spoke against the idea of the Inter-Parliamentary Union becoming the parliamentary forum for the WTO. (“I’ve been a member of the IPU. It’s a clique.”)

§ Securing agreement on creating a new parliamentary body also entails difficulties, particularly with an enlarged WTO membership and the need for consensus (Moore).

D. Globalization and Trade: A Union’s View*

Sponsored by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, this workshop marked a significant step in opening the dialogue between the WTO and organized labour. There were reported to have been many reservations among WTO members about allowing this workshop. However, from ‘corridor comments’ the workshop has worked very well as a first effort at a balanced dialogue on trade and labour issues.

Key Points in the Presentations

§ As a result of its accession to the WTO, China is now facing the need to carry out major restructuring of many parts of its economy, involving large-scale loss of jobs. However, at the same time China has further restricted its workers’ rights laws thereby reducing the legal recourse for displaced workers. (Tang, HKCTU)

§ The lack of public transparency of the request/offer procedure raises the concerns of many workers in the services sector. (Waghorne, PSI)

§ The suppression of workers’ rights has a similar effect on export pricing to the provision of government subsidies but has not been recognized or regulated by the WTO (Lee, AFL-CIO).

§ The growing insecurity of workers, perceived as linked to the WTO, is beginning to generate a strong backlash around the world. Paying more attention to this issue is vital for the continued support for the multilateral trading system. (Alhadeff, Solidar)

§ Concerns were expressed about inserting ‘labour clauses’ in trade agreements, which may lead to sanctions and other mechanisms for enforcement.

§ The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) may be a means for countries to raise concerns about labour standards, put their own up for scrutiny or praise, and test the relevance of Article 20 of the GATT (A. Johnson, Canada).

The discussion focussed on the role of the ILO and its relationship to the WTO, calling for a greater level of cooperation between the two institutions. However, the range of institutional linkages on labour and related questions, such as the OECD Guidelines for MNEs and developing linkages between ILO and WIPO, were also examined as “tools” for enhancing dialogue and action. Maintaining political pressure at the domestic level was viewed as an essential means of ensuring compliance to ILO conventions among signatories (AFL-CIO).

E. New Issues in the Trading System

The new issues of investment and competition policies are highly controversial in the context of the current WTO negotiations. On the surface, this is odd given that both developed and developing countries recognize the importance of foreign direct investment and true competition in fostering efficient growth. However, developing countries are deeply sceptical or doubtful of their own ability to negotiate effectively in these areas and the corresponding risk that the outcomes may seriously damage the possibility of their own development.

Key Points in the Presentations

Investment

§ The link between foreign direct investment and poverty reduction is currently very tenuous. Investments by transnational corporations are very difficult for national governments to control and risk levels inhibit foreign direct investment by some of the overseas investors originally from developing countries. A WTO development oriented agreement could help in this area. (Subramanian, U of Lancaster)

§ Any multilateral investment agreement would have to deal with over 2000 bilateral investment agreements and the very complex balancing between the rights of the investor and the public good. The WTO has not dealt well with ‘distributional issues’ that lie at the heart of the debate on investment policy. (Von Moltke, IISD)

Competition

§ Anti-competitive behaviour has the potential to steal the benefits of trade liberalization. Bilateral agreements between unequal countries don’t work because of the power imbalance. Only a multilateral agreement can deal with the activities of transnational corporations. (Jenny, France)

§ Developing countries fear the additional costs and obligations of taking on a multilateral competition agreement (ref. TRIPs implementation costs). Assistance with domestic efforts at competition policy based on common core principles plus some mechanism to share the fines levied by developed countries on ‘hard core’ cartels are preferred by developing countries (Ongolo, Kenya)

§ Trade policy is top down and assumes a well functioning retail market. Competition policy has the potential to be bottom up ensuring that consumers benefit from trade liberalization. (Evans, UK Consumers Association)

F. Functioning and Financing the WTO

This entertaining session included a large panel made up of WTO former and current major players and a number of important current ambassadors. Panellists included current D-G Mike Moore, former U.S. TR Clayton Yeutter, who chaired the meeting, former D-G Arthur Dunkel, Hong Kong Representative Stuart Harbinson, and Ambassadors Chandrasekhar (India), Trojan (European Commission), de la Calle (Mexico), Bryn (Norway), Laurent (Eastern Caribbean states) as well as Rashid Kaubab from the South Centre).

For this group, many of the problems discussed were not new; they’ve remained topical since the days of the GATT. After Seattle the WTO had reviewed its working methods. At the time there was agreement that fundamental change was not needed; that the consensus principle should not be touched. However, responding in part to the oft-criticized Green room process, they did agree on some modest changes:

1. All small group consultations must be announced.

2. Members can be included in small group consultations if they wish.

3. Information from small group meetings must be provided to open-ended meetings.

4. Decisions emerging from small group discussions must be confirmed by open-ended meetings.

Notwithstanding the title, the session focussed not at all on the “financing,” and entirely on the “functioning” (especially decision making, role of the WTO D-G and internal transparency) of the WTO. Although the tone was witty and collegial, there were occasional telling comments and points of disagreement.

§ Is it possible and/or necessary to change consensus decision making? Some raised the possibility of other forms of decision taking (representative groups; voting) for administrative or procedural matters. Even here, problems were foreseen. “Process IS substance.” the value of consensus is that once agreement is reached, it can be made binding on all.

§ Are the old GATT structures and procedures appropriate for an enlarged WTO? Has the WTO done enough to keep up with the changes in membership and mandate? What about the need to allow the WTO to adapt to changes in the world? The WTO is restricted in its ability to function as a rule-making body outside of the single undertakings, which take a long time to negotiate.

§ The relationship between the D-G and the Chair of General Council could be clarified, perhaps even codified somehow (Dunkel, Harbinson). There is an arbitration role in the Dispute Settlement Undertaking, but it’s a dead letter (Trojan). Perhaps the D-G could have a policy initiating role (Trojan).

§ The process for selecting the Director–General needs work. The D-G needs “more elbow room” (Trojan).

§ Various proposals for a consultative body were floated, including reviving the “CG18,” a body which under the GATT included a representative group of high level trade officials from national capitals meeting in a deliberative forum in Geneva.

§ Most on this panel (Moore, Yeutter, de la Calle) who addressed transparency of dispute settlement (D-S) processes did not favour opening up the D-S process to, for example, allow amicus briefs. This would allow too much influence for TNCs and NGOs in a process already weighed down (and disadvantaging some developing countries) through lengthy legal procedures. Mike Moore was sympathetic to receiving written briefs (not participation) from private organizations.

§ Regarding problems faced by small countries with small or no permanent re