Document URFIG - Prise de position relative à OMC-UE
APPEAL
TO EU member states and the European Commission
FROM MORE THAN 100 EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS
(28
October 2003)
After
Cancun: Drop the demand to start WTO negotiations on the Singapore Issues once
and for all from the EU trade agenda !
The
European Union has been unsuccessful in its strategy to convince WTO member
states to start formal negotiations on a set of new rules on investment,
competition, transparency in government procurement, and trade facilitation.
During the 5th Ministerial of the WTO in Cancun, 10-14
September 2003, a majority of WTO members clearly stated that negotiations on
these so-called Singapore Issues should not be launched, as the WTO is not the
appropriate forum to address these issues.
The
negotiating strategy employed by the European Union must be regarded as one of
the main reasons for the failure of this Conference. While the final hour offer
on the 14 September by the Art. 133 Committee and Commissioner Lamy to drop two
of the four issues from the negotiating (investment and competition) may be
regarded as a step in the right direction, it was too little, too late.
Furthermore, this was considered to a be a tactical response and not a
meaningful reaction to the well argued demands of the majority of developing
countries not to proceed on any of the Singapore Issues.
In
the run up to Cancun, more then 100 civil society groups throughout the European
Union had issued a call to the EU Trade Council in Palermo, 6 July 2003,
demanding a withdrawal of the EU demands for WTO expansion in Cancun. It was
calling on EU Member States to:
·
withdraw
support for the start of negotiations on the so-called “new issues” in
Cancun
·
stop
engaging in misleading trade off and arm twisting strategies, and instead
implement previously agreed commitments, before asking for any further
concessions from developing counties in return
·
review
thoroughly, and then fundamentally reform, the existing trade rules, in order to
shift in focus from trade and investment liberalisation as an end goal, to the
promotion of sustainable development and poverty eradication.
·
promote
a fair and balanced international framework for investment, preferably located
in the UN, and based on a set of rules which would support sustainable
development and make corporations responsible for their practices
·
revise
accordingly the negotiating mandate of Commissioner Lamy.
We
reiterate our demands and invite you to take them into your most serious
consideration in the run up of the next General Council of the WTO, scheduled
for 15 December 2003. We urge you to make sure that the EU will drop, once and
for all, the Singapore Issues from the EU agenda for negotiations in the WTO.
This
decision will give a positive signal to developing countries that the EU draws
the right conclusions from the failure of Cancun, and is prepared to respect the
will of the majority of WTO member states.
The
Fifth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to be held in
Cancun in September 2003 will take a landmark decision over whether the WTO’s
agenda should be expanded to include new negotiations on a multilateral
investment agreement, competition policy, transparency in government procurement
and trade facilitation. As EU trade ministers meet in Palermo, Italy (6 July) to
discuss their negotiating position in advance of the WTO Ministerial, the
undersigned take this opportunity to reaffirm the central role that the EU
Member States must play in deciding the EU’s position at the WTO, taking into
full consideration the concerns expressed by all civil society groups. We call
on EU Member States to call the European Commission to account and halt the push
for an expanded WTO agenda.
The
European Commission repeatedly frames its ambitions at the WTO in the context of
development and sustainable trade. It refers to the ‘Doha Development
Agenda’, and more recently has started to brand possible negotiations on
investment as an ‘Investment for Development Framework’. In reality, there
is no evidence that WTO agreements on the proposed four new issues, especially
investment, will enhance development for the poorest and most marginalised
countries, let alone that they will be the ones to ‘benefit the most’.
The
introduction of new rules at the WTO will grant multinational companies
increased rights while also restricting the ability of governments to maintain
and create strong regulatory frameworks and rights for citizens and communities.
Protection of the environment and promotion of social and economic equality
depend on government action to ensure that patterns of investment and government
procurement promote, rather than undermine, sustainable development.
1.
We call on EU trade ministers to withdraw their support for the start of
negotiations on the new issues at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun as
proposed by the European Commission. The EU should base its policy positions
on evidence of development and environmental impacts of the new issues, in
order to guarantee coherence with broader EU policy goals in these areas.
In
order to secure its proposal to expand the WTO agenda, the European Commission
has linked its process for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), to
developing countries agreeing to move forward on the new issues. The fact of the
matter is that the EU’s current WTO proposal on agriculture would in reality
not commit the EU to do much more than it is already doing and this trade-off
represents an empty offer for developing countries.
WTO
agreements on investment and competition would also enhance rights of big
agri-business corporations further undermining the livelihoods of small farmers
and rural populations worldwide.
Agreement
to negotiate these so-called ‘new issues’ within the WTO is not a foregone
conclusion. Ever since the First Ministerial Conference of the WTO, held in
Singapore in 1996, most developing countries have consistently argued against
such new negotiations for both substantive reasons and because this would expand
the existing WTO workload which is already beyond the capacity of many
delegations. At a recent WTO meeting in Geneva, both the Africa group and the
Least-Developed Country (LDC) group reaffirmed their opposition to the launch of
negotiations on new issues. Even more recently, LDC Trade Ministers meeting in
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 31 May – 2 June, and the African Trade Ministers' meeting
in Mauritius from 19-20 June called for the continuation of the ‘study
process’ rather than starting full blown negotiations. Given the sustained
opposition from the majority of the WTO’s developing country membership, the
EU’s insistence on adding more issues to an already overcrowded negotiating
agenda is highly inappropriate.
3.
We call on EU trade ministers to support an agenda to review and radically
reform existing trade rules rather than forcing through a set of negotiations
that most developing countries do not want.
The
agenda that the European Commission is planning to take to Cancun, is not one
supported by EU citizens, nor does it have the support of the majority of
developing country WTO member countries. There are also doubts about majority
support within EU member states. In recent meetings, trade officials from
various Member States made it explicit to non-government organisations that
expanding the WTO with the new issues is not their Cancun priority.
There
is deep concern about the role that the European Commission is playing in the
current negotiations. It is clear that pressure to expand the WTO’s powers is
coming from major corporate lobby groups such as the International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC) and UNICE.
The
undoubted influence these groups have in the EU institutions makes it all the
more
necessary
for the views of civil society groups to be heard and taken into account.
This
corporate influence has been most prominent in the EU strategy for the WTO’s
negotiations on services (GATS). Leaked versions of the EU’s requests for
services liberalisation from 109 countries, as part of the GATS negotiations,
reflect the offensive interests of the European services industry. There have
been strong calls for these requests to be withdrawn. High priority should be
given to develop balanced and truly democratic mechanisms for civil society to
input in trade policy preparation.
4.
We call on EU trade ministers to assume their decision-making responsibilities
in the run up to Cancun. We encourage EU Member States to voice their concerns
about the current position of the European Commission the new issues and
support a European negotiating agenda which is more responsive to the concerns
of EU citizens and to the demands of poverty reduction and sustainable
development. The new issues have
to be withdrawn from the EU position. This means a revision of the negotiating
mandate that the Council gave to Commissioner Lamy back in 1999 before the
Third Ministerial Conference in Seattle.
Signatories:
1.
ActionAid Alliance, Belgium
2.
ActionAid UK
3.
Africa-Europe Faith and Justice Network , Belgium
4.
Africa Groups of Sweden
5.
Agir Ici, France
6.
Alert! Groningen, the Netherlands
7.
Amigos de la Tierra, Spain
8.
Associazione Ricreativa Culturale Italiana (ARCI),Italy
9.
Associazione Rurale Italiana - ARI, Italy
10.
Attac Austria
11.
Attac Finland
12.
Attac Flanders
13.
Attac France
14.
Attac Denmark
15.
Attac Hungary
16.
Attac London
17.
Attac Spain
18.
Attac Sweden
19.
Azione Aiuto, Italy
20.
Berne Declaration, Switzerland
21.
Biodiversity Conservation Center, Russia
22.
Both ENDS, the Netherlands
23.
Buendnis fuer Eine Welt / OeIE, Austria
24.
Bureau Verantwoord, Tilburg, the Netherlands
25.
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz/Friends of the Earth Germany
26.
Campaign for the Welfare State (For velferdsstaten), Norway
27.
Campaign to Reform the World Bank, Italy
28.
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)
29.
CCOMC, France
30.
Center for Encounter and Active Non-Violence, Austria
31.
Center for Environmental Public Advocacy, Slovak Republic
32.
Center for International Environmental Law - Europe, Geneva, Switzerland
33.
Central Euro-Asian Studies (CEAS), Sweden
34.
Centro Internazionale CROCEVIA, Italy
35.
Christian Aid, UK
36.
Cipsi, Italy
37.
Coalition of the Flemish North-South Movement-11.11.11
38.
Cocis (a federation of NGO's), Italy
39.
Coordination Paysanne Européenne / European Farmers Coordination,
Belgium
40.
Corporate Europe Observatory, the Netherlands
41.
Circolo Culturale Palazzo Cattaneo, Italy
42.
Dachverband entwicklungspolitischer Organisationen in Kärnten,
Austria
43.
DeA - Donne e Anbiente, Italy
44.
Deutsche Kommission Justitia et Pax, Germany
45.
Dreikönigsaktion der Kath. Jungschar, Austria
46.
Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
47.
Estonian Green Movement-FoE, Estonia
48.
Evangelischer Arbeitskreis für Weltmission (EAWM), Austria
49.
Fédération Syndicale Unitaire, France
50.
Framtiden i Våra Händer / The Future in our Hands, Sweden
51.
Friends of the Earth Europe, Belgium
52.
Friends of the Earth, France
53.
Friends of the Earth, Cyprus
54.
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
55.
Friends of the Earth, Scotland
56.
Friends of the Earth, Slovakia
57.
German NGO Forum on Environment and Development - Working Group on Trade
58.
Germanwatch, Germany
59.
Greenpeace European Union Unit
60.
Hnuti DUHA/Friends of the Earth Czech Republic
61.
Initiative Colibri, GN3 Germany
62.
Initiative Netzwerk Dreigliederung, Stuttgart, Germany
63.
Informationsgruppe Lateinamerika (IGLA), Vienna, Austria
64.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
65.
INTI WAWA, Morarp, Sweden
66.
Institut de Recherches de la FSU (IRHESC), Paris, France
67.
Institut pour la Relocalisation de l'Economie (IRE), France
68.
International Coalition for Development Action (ICDA), Brussels, Belgium
69.
Kirchliche Arbeitsstelle Südliches Afrika (KASA), Germany
70.
K.U.L.U.-Women and Development, Denmark
71.
Le Monde selon les femmes, Belgium
72.
Lila Cedius, Italy
73.
Maan ystävät ry (Friends of the Earth Finland)
74.
Maailmankauppojen liitto ry (The Finnish Association of World Shops)
75.
Mani Tese, Italy
76.
Merkur GN3, Sweden
77.
Network of European World Shops (NEWS), Brussels, Belgium
78.
Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE), Belgium
79.
NOAH - Fiends of the Earth Denmark
80.
NOVIB/Oxfam Netherlands
81.
One World Action, UK
82.
Oxfam Germany
83.
Oxfam Great Britain
84.
Oxfam Intermon, Spain
85.
Oxfam International
86.
Oxfam Ireland
87.
Oxfam Solidarité, Belgium
88.
People and Planet, UK
89.
Rete Lilliput, Italy
90.
ROBA dell'Altro Mondo (a fair trade organisation), Italy
91.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), UK
92.
Social Development Group, Norway
93.
SydAfrika Kontakt - Southern Africa Contact, Denmark
94.
The Service Centre for Development Co-operation (Kepa), Finland
95.
Traidcraft, UK
96.
Transnational Institute (TNI), the Netherlands
97.
Tresam, Goteborg, Sweden
98.
Unione degli Studenti, Italy
99.
Unione degli Universitari, Italy
100.
URFIG, Belgium/France
101.
Urgewald, Germany
102.
Weltumspannend Arbeiten, Austria
103.
Wemos Foundation, The Netherlands
104.
World Development Movement, UK
105.
World Economy, Ecology & Development (WEED), Germany
106.
World Information Service on Energy (WISE) Amsterdam, the Netherlands
107.
WWF-European Policy Office, Brussels, Belgium
108.
XminusY Solidarity Fund, the Netherlands
109.
Zartonk-89, Armenia