Statement by Jorge Ferrer, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Cuba in Geneva, at the General Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Geneva, December 18, 2007
Mr. Chairman:
The Cuban delegation wishes to thank the Director General, Mr. Pascal Lamy, for his statement in his capacity of Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee.
We also want to express our support to the statements and concerns expressed by Brazil, on behalf of the G 20, Indonesia from G 33; Jamaica, as Chair of the ACP; Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries; Uganda, representing the African Group; South Africa from NAMA 11, Chad as representative of the Group Cotton 4; Lesotho from the Least Developed Countries and Barbados, as Coordinator of the SVEs.
My delegation also has a longer statement, but it will shorten it and send the full text for the records of this meeting.
For Cuba, the key issue is not to conclude the Doha Round, but to finalize it with clear benefits for the destitute and always forgotten: the small, poor and vulnerable developing countries that, being 4/5 or the world population, only account for one-third of world trade despite the growth in the last few years.
It is better to have no agreement than to end the Round with a bad agreement that only benefits a few. If we finalize it with a bad agreement, there will be nothing else to do. Unfair trade rules will prevail for several years or maybe even decades. If we do not conclude the Round, the door will remain open to continue working for a balance and succesful conclusion.
Mr. Chairman:
The truth is that current Multilateral Negotiations on the Working Groups and Committees of the WTO have progressed slowly, step by step, basically, at the expense of the flexibilities shown by developing countries groups.
After almost a year of the resumption of the the negotiations, there are no clear signals of full convergence in the central questions of modalities, nor in the flexibilities and mandated special and differential treatment for underdeveloped countries in general and for the LDCs in particular.
Developed countries remain opposed, silent, nonflexible or uncommitted on several mandated issues of interest for developing countries that still remain unresolved in many areas.
The recent joint papers by the United States and the European Communities with other developed countries and their statements today on the negotiations on services, NAMA, and services and environmental goods seeking advantages for themselves is a cause for serious concern. They are trying to reinterpret and reverse mandates and to restrict flexibilities for developing countries.
The modalities in services are already established in Annex C of the Hong Kong Declaration. There is neither room nor mandate for any new paper or for the return to benchmarking in this area.
It is also worrying the recent presentation in this House of a paper by the Warwick Commission, constituted by a majority of experts from developed countries, calling for an end to the consensus decision-making traditional practice and to replace it with an undefined and subjective so-called “critical mass”.
The said proposal tries to qualify the legitimacy of the objections of some members or group of members and the nature of their interest in a given issue. It should be clear that any attempt to change the decision-making practices for the benefit of some members is unacceptable.
Developed countries talk about real and effective tariff cuts for developing countries in agriculture and industrial products (NAMA), but they refuse to apply the same approach to their multimillion domestic subsidies that distort international trade or to their agricultural tariffs peaks that can be up to hundreds and even more than a thousand percent in some agricultural products of interest to developing countries. What kind of equality and development are we talking about here?
Developed countries display an unrealistic ambition asking impossible concessions from developing countries in NAMA and services, in return for their cosmetic cuts in their trade distorting domestic subsidies. This is not an option.
Agriculture is at the center of the Doha Development Agenda to correct the imbalances of the Uruguay Round. Developed countries have a responsability and a moral obligation to reach a compromise on a real and effective reduction of agriculture subsidies, where the real trade distortions are, and on removing tariff and non tariff barriers to ensure market access for developing countries products.
This is not a market access Round for developed countries, but a development Round and, in any case, to give developing countries access to the markets of the industrialized countries.
Mr Chairman:
The world oil, transportation and basic foodstuffs prices have increased dramatically since Members committed politically in the July 2004 Framework and the 2005 Ministerial Declaration in Hong Kong to eliminate agriculture Export credits with repayment periods beyond 180 days and the predictions are that such world prices will continue to increase in the next 10 years.
This unprecedented situation puts additional pressure on countries’ ability to cover their food import bills. The annual food import basket for LDCs in 2007 is expected to cost roughly 90 percent more than it did in 2000.
Higher commodities prices, including foodstuffs, means extra import costs for developing countries importers, in particular for LDCs and Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) that will not benefit initially from liberalisation and may in fact suffer and most of which are also oil importers whose exports are concentrated in few primary commodities.
Obviously, the provisions of differential and more favourable treatment for Least-developed countries and net food-importing developing countries contained in Annex D of the draft modalities on agriculture contravene the Marrakech Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries and will render it useless.
Furthermore, a study by the OECD Secretariat showed that the subsidy element in agricultural export credits provided by OECD countries was generally small, about US$300 million in 1998 out of US$7.9 billions.
Therefore, an exemption or further differential and more favourable treatment for LDCs and NFIDCs in the exports credits disciplines proposed will have no impact or a very small impact on the subsidies issue.
Further flexibilities for LDCs and NFIDC will have no impact on market access either because export credits are used by developing countries facing liquidity constraints and, if the credits are not available or are severely restricted, as proposed in the draft modalities, the countries concerned will not be able to import the necessary food.
Thus, this question becomes an issue of WTO disciplines for trade purposes versus food insecurity or hunger in vulnerable developing countries.
Besides, the proposed provisions of the draft modalities on agriculture will effectively cut applied levels of export credits available to the most vulnerable developing countries, while the proposed cuts in domestic support of developed countries will leave a huge room to increase the applied levels of domestic support by developed countries, which is the real cause of distortions in the world trade. This is not consistent with the development mandate of the Doha Round.
According to the mandate of Special and Diffrential Treatment for Developing Countries, there should be a different treatment in the repayment period for develop and developing countries as credit providers and also a different treatment for developing countries as recipients, in particular for LDCs and net food importing countries, of more than 360 days for the latter, with no terms or conditions attached.
Many developing countries groups share the view and expect that any contribution or movements in the future will only be possible, subject to flexibilities and new and significant contributions from developed Members.
A successful outcome in NAMA and Agriculture must include the pending solution to the implementation issues, special and differential treatment and flexibilities for developing countries, inclunding the treatment for small and vulnerable economies and RAMs, the realization of the mandate of paragraph 50 of agriculture on export restrictions, paragraph 6 and 8 of NAMA flexibilities mandate, the elimination of non trade barriers in NAMA, including Non Tariff barriers related to non trade issues, cotton, Special products and SSM for all developing countries, net food developing countries importers, preference erosion, etc.
Mr. Chairman:
Much more balanced revised draft texts on agriculture and NAMA modalities are needed.
Such texts will lead us to consensus only if they are based on the existing work programmes and mandates of the July 2004 Framework and the Doha and Hong Kong Ministerial Meetings, if they are impartial and reflect the views of the Members; if they dully respect the sequencing agreed by the Ministers in the Hong Kong Declaration that establishes clearly that modalities on agriculture and NAMA should be agreed first and if they meet in full with the mandate that development is at center of this Round and with the agreed principles of full and non-partial modalities, less than full reciprocity, single undertaking and balance between Agriculture and NAMA, according to paragraph 24 of Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
After the issuance of revised drafts texts on the different negotiating groups, Members should first be given sufficient time to study them carefully.
Afterwords, further intensive discussions on the revised drafts in open ended meetings of the negotiating bodies under the leadership of the respective Chairs should also be convened and not only on small format groups or any other form of hand-picked representative democracy.
We also hope that later, once most of the issues are ripe and have been settled, any horizontal process at the Ministerial level meeting will be convened for all members and not a less than full Ministerial in which only some Members participate.
The whole future process must fulfill also the mandates of paragraph 48 and 49 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration that stated that negotiations shall be open to all members and should be conducted in a transparent manner in order to facilitate the effective participation of all and ensuring benefits to all and that decisions should be taken only by WTO Members.
Thank you very much.