Presentation:
Doha Round: The Final
Frontier
Henry B. Jeffrey
Minister of Foreign Trade
and International Cooperation
Guyana
Mr. Chairman,
Everywhere, there is talk
of development being at the heart of the present round of negotiations.
Those who have been here
over the last two days can have no doubt of that. Indeed, the 2004 July
Framework made the matter quite clear:
“… development concerns”
it claimed “form an integral part of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
The General Council
rededicates and recommits Members to fulfilling the development
dimension of the Doha Development Agenda, which places the needs and
interest of developing and least-developed countries at the heart of the
Doha Work Programme.”
However, what precisely is
involved in this commitment remains ill-defined, insufficient and most
of all: un-agreed.
As a result, there is much
questioning of sincerity.
I have seen it said that
the commitment to a development dimension was only tacked on to the Doha
Round to assuage the concerns and gain the commitment of developing
countries.
And that developing
country should not have allowed the negotiations to recommence without
some clearly defined commitment to an acceptable development dimension.
Well, the Round has
restarted, but we should not allow it to conclude without some clear
understanding and commitments on this matter.
Of course, the development
dimension is critical for the small and vulnerable countries of the
Caribbean, and so we are particularly interested in its content. My
intention here is to say something of our position on this matter, to
indicate how it has evolved and point to some difficulties of that
evolution.
As part of the ACP, our
region is also involved in negotiating an Economic Partnership Agreement
with the European Union.
In this context, questions
as to both the nature of the development dimension and the sincerity of
those involved have also arisen, in even more promising circumstances.
In 2002 the European
Community (Recommendations of a Council Decision …) claimed that while
the Economic Partnership Agreements would set the trade policy
framework, this would have:
“to be complemented by
development policies in areas such as regional integration,
macroeconomic and social policies, environmental policies, good
governance (administrative and legal reforms) supply-side measures
(e.g., private sector support, infrastructure, education, health),
fiscal reform and assistance in trade related areas, such as customs
administration, investment, competition policies and standards”.
In my view, this portends
an impressive understanding of development needs if it is conceived
along side and additional to development requirements, as they relate
specifically to trade issues.
However, this seemingly
advanced interpretation did not prevent our Chief Negotiator in these
matters from noting that, while for the ACP - and certainly for the
Caribbean - the development aspects are most important, the EU
negotiators were playing it down:
“There is a definite
contradiction between the narrow focus on trade liberalisation and the
EU’s argument that EPAs are instruments for development rather than to
force open regional markets”.
The situation has improved
somewhat but we must not forget, if we could, of the great divide that
can develop between rhetoric and reality.
Although in the Caribbean
we recognise that there is a general commitment to a development effort,
we take opportunities such as these to make our position as clear as
possible.
We believe that trade
policy should be derived from a general developmental policy.
Therefore, for us, though
essential, trade liberalisation and reform of our trade rules are but
one part of the process of development.
This process will properly
acknowledge and address our development concerns when it makes it
possible for us to effectively occupy the space created by market
access.
Ms. Sandra Polaski in a
study (“Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries”) that was
circulated at this meeting, made the point that:
“… it is clear from the
Carnegie model and a close study of most other recent models that trade
is not a panacea for poverty alleviation or for development more
generally.
Trade is one factor among
many that can contribute to economic growth and rising incomes, but its
contribution is likely to be very modest.”
And a study (In Havelock
Brewster’s: “Integrating the Development Dimension …”) conducted for the
Word Bank stated that:
“... there still remains a
conspicuous and chronic gap between available market access and the
capacity to meet production targets in terms of quantity, quality,
standards, delivery time, etc, as well as to diversify the product mix.
…
Therefore, in seeking to
develop a regional strategy for the future, emphasis should be placed on
addressing the supply side constraints underlying the gap.
What is required is a
production orientated strategy.”
A commitment to such
regimes as, for example, Special and Differential Treatment, Special
Products, Special Safeguard Mechanism, Duty Free and Quota Free Access
and Aid for Trade, must be conceived and developed against this
backdrop.
As a region, the Caribbean
Community does not have a single development plan, but there are many
studies which indicate the region’s developmental priorities. At the
last Heads of Government meeting, held in the island of St. Vincent last
month, the region adopted an holistic Development Vision for sustainable
development over which there is broad consensus.
What this means is that
for us in the Caribbean, the development dimension must be rooted in and
contribute significantly to the development of this Vision.
It must, inter alia,
address:
-
Structural reforms and
reorganization at both macro and sectoral levels e.g. balance of
payment adjustments, revenue collection capacity development and
industrial restructuring.
-
Modernization of the infrastructure
that supports an efficient export sector and more importantly that
supports new economic activities and promotes competitiveness.
-
Capacity building in the labour
sector to fit new activities, jobs and occupations.
-
Modernization of the business
environment to build private sector capacity.
-
Measures and programmes for
scientific and technical development.
-
Poverty alleviation issues.
-
The preservation and enhancement of
the natural environment and
-
Regional integration that take into
consideration the geometry of the region.
(Based on C. Henry’s: “Development Chapter of an
EPA Agreement …”)
If our aim is to build an
equitable trading system that will serve the benefit of all, these are
the kind of issues we must confront and I believe that the validity of
most of what I have said is generally understood and acknowledged.
It is now for us to
devise, if they do not already exist, participative arrangements that
will allow us to make concrete commitments that will transform the
development dimension into a reality that can contribute to all of us
having the good life.
This may not be the
correct forum, but remember the words of Karl Marx:
“Philosophers have
interpreted the world in various ways: the point is to change it”.
And let me add, as I know
he intended: change it for the better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------