*{Is the WTO serious about reducing world poverty?
The Development Agenda for Doha
2001}

This briefing outlines the issues which the WTO should address if it is to make an effective contribution to poverty reduction in developing countries. The paper, prepared in advance of the Ministerial Conference in Doha, argues that 1) Uruguay Round outcomes were unfair to poor countries, 2) Ministers should therefore commit the WTO to rebalance present agreements and address specific implementation measures, and 3) new issues should not be added to the existing negotiation agenda. The decisions at Doha will be an acid test for rich-country commitment to development and for the legitimacy of the WTO.
 
*{Introduction}
The prospect of recession in the world economy is throwing a dark shadow over the developing world, dashing hopes for better livelihoods. For more than a billion poor people, the opportunities for making a decent living were already negligible. The need for the world trading system to be managed in the interests of poorer people and countries is therefore greater than ever.
Regrettably, in the two years following the breakdown of the Seattle summit, the richer members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have signally failed to respond to this need. And now, the draft declaration for the Doha ministerial conference, issued on 26 September, reinforces fears that the powerful trading nations are once again mouthing ritual phrases about sustainable development while steadfastly pursuing the narrow commercial interests of their large corporations. This short-sighted policy not only threatens the livelihoods of people in poverty but also jeopardises the multilateral management of trade by alienating the developing countries, which make up the majority of the WTO membership. The least-developed countries (LDCs) have already made clear that the declaration does not adequately take into account their interests and views. A number of other developing countries have expressed similar disappointment.
Oxfam hopes that the industrialised countries will come round to the view that development must be the driver of trade policy. Doha is the litmus test for their intentions. This briefing paper, which is intended for people involved in trade policy making, economic journalists, and the interested public, sets outs the issues which Oxfam believes the WTO must resolve at the conference and address over the coming years, if it is to make an effective contribution to poverty reduction.
*{Summary of Oxfam’s position}
The Uruguay Round trade agreements were unfair to poor countries. Rich countries have not implemented many parts of those agreements that might have been good for development.
The WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha should therefore agree specific implementation measures, and commit the WTO to rebalance the existing agreements over the next two years.
 
The industrialised countries should make immediate commitments to grant full market access to least-developed countries, phase out agricultural export subsidies and review the intellectual property agreement (TRIPS).
The WTO agenda over the next two years should focus on reform of agricultural trade with a view to enhancing food security, on improved access to Northern markets for all developing countries, and on rebalancing the TRIPS agreement so that it better serves the public good.
The services negotiations underway should be based on voluntary commitments by developing countries, by sector, and without external pressure to liberalise.
It is not in the interests of development to add new issues to the WTO agenda now because it would distract from this unfinished business and over-stretch the negotiating capacity of poorer countries. Moreover, further study of the impact of the Uruguay Round is needed before embarking on further liberalisation.

*{Premises}
Oxfam’s position starts from the following premises:
•International trade can be a force for poverty reduction by overcoming scarcity, and by creating livelihoods and employment opportunities, but this is not an automatic process. Trade liberalisation is not a panacea for poverty, any more than protectionism.
•A multilateral, rules-based trade system is needed to manage trade in the interests of sustainable development. The WTO is a central component of this system – the challenge is radically to improve it.
•All WTO negotiations should be guided by the principles of poverty eradication, respect for human rights, and environmental sustainability. This implies the need for review of the social/environmental impacts of the Uruguay Round, and for forward-looking assessments of any future WTO agreements.
 
*partie=titre The starting point for Doha *partie=nil 
The Uruguay Round, and the wider process of trade liberalisation to date, has not been a fair deal for developing countries. Industrialised countries have levered open markets in developing countries, often with high social costs, while keeping their own markets protected against developing-country exports. UNCTAD has calculated that rich-country trade barriers cost developing countries US$700bn every year. These imbalances need correcting.
The rich countries made a number of commitments at the end of the Uruguay Round which have not been honoured, such as progressive liberalisation of textile markets, and assistance with trade capacity building. Some agreements, such as TRIPS, are proving highly problematic for developing countries and must be reviewed.
Industrialised countries have yet to demonstrate that they are prepared to put sustainable development before short-term commercial advantage, or break with the mercantilist approach to trade negotiation. Developing countries lack confidence in the political will of the major trading nations to do things differently.
*{The ‘development agenda’ for Doha}
The Doha Ministerial and the work programme it defines should address the unfinished business of the Uruguay Round, i.e. the fulfilment of previous commitments to developing countries, and the re-balancing and review of existing agreements. Worryingly, the 26 September draft Doha declaration does not address this imperative, suggesting that the industrialised countries have not shifted positions since Seattle.
There is no mention, for example, of the need for the USA, Canada, and Japan to grant full access to their markets for the LDCs, which continue to be marginalised from world trade. This measure has long been considered a key test for whether the industrialised countries are serious about making trade work for poverty reduction. In the case of the European Union, minor concessions on market access for LDCs were only obtained after a major battle, revealing just how little the powerful nations seem prepared to allow trade to work for poor countries. The declaration is also silent on the need to review the TRIPS agreement from a development and public-health perspective. Ambassador Ali Mchumo of Tanzania, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, described the section on TRIPS as ‘extremely disappointing’. ‘In our view’, he continued, ‘it is basically empty of content, ignoring the evidence of problems generated in recent years.’ Given this lack of response from rich nations to issues of vital concern to the poorest, the demand from many developing countries that there should be 'down payment' by the industrialised countries, prior to the launch of any round, seems extremely reasonable.
Oxfam, together with most developing-country governments, wishes to see the following specific outcomes of the conference.

*partie=titre Agreement now on the following five key points *partie=nil 
1A commitment by rich countries to provide tariff/quota-free access for all LDC exports by 2003
2A commitment by rich countries to phase out agricultural export subsidies by 2003
3An agreement on a binding, pro-public health interpretation of TRIPS and a commitment to revision of the agreement 
4An agreement on stopping protectionist abuse of anti-dumping rules by rich countries, notably the USA
5A commitment by rich countries to increase substantially the funding of trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building.

*partie=titre A commitment to achieve the following objectives over the next two years *partie=nil 
•Agriculture
- elimination of all forms of export support by industrialised countries and reduction of other trade-distorting subsidies.
- recognition of the right of developing countries to protect and promote domestic food production as part of their national food-security strategies.
•Market access
- greater access to rich-country markets for developing-country exports, especially in the agricultural and textiles/clothing sectors.
- priority given to reducing tariff peaks and escalation, but also protectionist use of non-tariff barriers addressed (e.g. rules of origin and sanitary standards).
•Intellectual property:
- revision of TRIPS to give developing countries greater choice about if and when to introduce high levels of intellectual property protection in pharmaceuticals and other sectors.
•Services:
- ensuring that services negotiations are based on voluntary commitments by developing countries, by sector, and without external pressure for hasty or ill-considered commitments.
- agreeing liberalisation in areas of interest to developing countries, such as the movement of natural persons.
• Other implementation issues, including:
- extending transition periods for compliance with existing agreements, e.g. TRIMS (on investment regulation) and TRIPS.
- revision of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism to make it fairer for poor countries.
- reviewing the boundaries of the WTO role and its coherence with other international institutions and conventions.

*partie=titre A comprehensive round and the ‘new issues’? *partie=nil 
Oxfam, along with most developing countries, disagrees with the proposal, spearheaded by the EU, to launch a ‘broad’ or 'comprehensive' round. Such a round would include not only the on-going negotiations on agriculture and services but also the negotiation of new agreements on investment, competition, and procurement, among other subjects. It would also tie any revisions to existing agreements into the new round, which developing countries fear will mean 'paying twice' for the benefits they might derive from the bargaining. In the current draft declaration, the option of negotiating investment and competition agreements is still on the table, although the proposal on procurement has been scaled back to cover transparency and not market access.
Oxfam opposes the inclusion of these new issues because:
•expanding the agenda would over-stretch the capacity of many developing countries, which are already struggling to participate effectively in the WTO process and to implement their existing WTO commitments.
•it would distract attention from the unfinished development business, and increase the risk that developing countries would end up accepting disadvantageous trade-offs.
•based on experience to date, the new agreements would mainly be about opening up developing-country markets to international companies, and creating global rules that further straitjacket national development strategies in developing countries.
Oxfam would support eventual multilateral agreements on new issues if genuinely developmental, e.g. dealing with corporate monopoly and restrictive practices, tighter regulation of TNCs, or control of corruption, although these agreements would not necessarily be under the wing of the WTO.
One ‘new issue’ which does appear in the draft declaration and which may be of interest to developing countries, particularly in Asia, is lowering industrial tariffs. However, rich countries must be prepared to offer reductions in protection, such as removing tariff peaks on textiles, without demanding low levels in developing countries, many of which have already dropped tariffs unilaterally under pressure from the IMF and World Bank. Trade facilitation, which includes the standardisation of customs and taxation procedures, also appears as a possible issue for negotiation. This could theoretically bring benefits to developing countries, provided that financial and technical assistance is provided for implementation.
Labour standards should not be on the agenda as a 'new issue' for negotiation, or be a subject for WTO disciplines. The important discussions on ‘trade and labour’ should be conducted jointly with the ILO, which should be strengthened to deal with enforcement of standards.
Oxfam supports the resolution of the status of multilateral environment agreements in relation to trade rules, and the incorporation of the 'precautionary principle' into WTO agreements – both measures which do not require a new round. However, there must be safeguards against protectionist abuse of these provisions.

*partie=titre A ‘narrow round’? *partie=nil 
It seems unlikely that the WTO member states will agree to launch a ‘comprehensive' round. If there is a consensus at Doha about a round – i.e. a package of subjects to be negotiated together and agreed in a 'single undertaking' – it is likely to be for a 'narrow' round. This would have the agriculture and services negotiations that are already underway (the so-called in-built agenda) at its heart. Other items could be put in to the pot, such as industrial tariffs and trade facilitation, the mandated reviews on TRIPS and the Dispute Settlement Mechanism, as well as some of the ‘implementation’ concerns of developing countries. The developing world rightly resists both these concerns and the reviews forming part of the horse-trading of a new round, since they are about injustices from the old round that need remedying. With or without these items, it is highly misleading to call such a new round ‘narrow’, since agriculture and services are each enormous topics in their own right. 
Oxfam’s response to this ‘narrow' round proposition is that:
•From a development perspective, the decision on whether to stitch these issues together in a ‘round’ is essentially secondary. The key questions are whether the agenda is right, and whether there is a will to seek development-friendly outcomes.
•However, some issues of concern to developing countries, such as changes to the TRIPS agreement in order to better protect public health, and other unfinished business of the Uruguay Round, should be dealt with outside the horse-trading of a round.
•There could be some benefits for developing countries in a narrow round, but only if certain conditions obtain. These include:
- agreement on the five Doha outcomes listed above - this is the minimum ‘down-payment’ that rich countries have to offer in order to show that they are taking development seriously
- agreements that favour poor countries are made a priority in a round and should form part of an ‘early harvest’
- developing countries are not under pressure to liberalise vulnerable sectors, especially in agriculture, e.g. staple foods
- services negotiations are based on voluntary commitments, sector by sector, and without external pressure for inappropriate commitments
- all agreements should be based on prior assessments of social and environmental impact and concluded after informed public debate.
 
*{Conclusion}
Oxfam believes that wide-ranging changes are essential to ensure that the world trade regime promotes poverty reduction, respect for human rights, and environmental sustainability. These changes include reform of trade policies, agreements, and institutions at national, regional, and international levels, and a fundamental change of approach by governments.
This paper identifies a number of changes to be initiated at Doha which will redirect international trade rules in support of poverty reduction and sustainable development, and rebuild the confidence of developing countries in the multilateral trading system. If governments demonstrate sufficient political will, these policy proposals can be addressed in the short term within the context of existing WTO negotiations on agriculture, services, intellectual property, and implementation issues. Until this happens, it is inappropriate to discuss the launch of a broad round of negotiations incorporating a range of new issues.
Strong international rules are needed to manage trade, but the current rules favour the narrow business interests of the powerful economies and their large corporations, at the expense of poor men and women. Governments must turn this around, and take action to place people at the centre of trade policy-making.