A new power dynamics has emerged within the World Trade Organization (WTO) as alliances formed by the so-called weak majority are determined to counter the hegemony of rich countries.

In the report Civil Society Dialogue with Developing Country Negotiators, Focus on the Global Souths Joseph Purugganan notes that at the recent WTO talks, alliances such as the of Group of 33 (G-30), the Group of 20 (G-20) and NAMA-11 have been pushing for the recognition of developing countries rights to flexibilities in negotiations on subsidy and tariff cuts, particularly in agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA).

Negotiations on agriculture and NAMA have been ongoing in Geneva since the start of May but no agreement has so far been reached, reports the 12 May issue of the Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest. The WTOs deadline for setting modalities for cutting agricultural tariffs, farm subsidies and duties on industrial goods was set at the end of April.

G-20

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important
industrialised and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy. The members of the G-20 are the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea,Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The European Union is also a member, represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European
Central Bank

Source: Official G-20 Website  Australia. (2006). Retrieved May 22, 2006 from <http://www.g20.org/Public/AboutG20/index>

G-33 of developing countries

As of March 2006, the name is used for a group of developing countries that consist of the following: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, China, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, South Korea, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitts and Nevis, St
Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. They proposed special rules for developing countries at WTO negotiations, like allowing them to continue to restrict access to their agricultural markets.

Source:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_33>.

NAMA-11

The members of the NAMA-11 are Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, the Philippines, South Africa, Tunisia, and Venezuela.

Source:
ICTSD. (2006). EU, NAMA-11 call for new mechanism to deal with NTBs.
Retrieved May 23, 2006 from Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Volume 10, No. 17, May 12, 2006 from <http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-05-17/story6.htm>.
The main advocacy of the G-33 is the designation of at least 20% tariff lines on special products (SP). The group is also pushing that it is not necessary to simultaneously implement price and volume triggers as special safeguard mechanisms (SSM). The Asian Farmers Association (AFA) issue paper WTO Kills Farmers defines SPs as commodities that will be given market access flexibilities or protection from liberalisation in the form of exemption from tariff reduction or lower tariffs as prescribed by the WTO. Meanwhile, SSMs allows developing countries to apply additional tariffs or duties on imports in cases of import surges or price depression.

However, a recent US proposal is seeking very aggressive tariff cuts with very little differentiation between developed and developing countries. This prompted the G-33 to come together with the African Group, Caribbean and Pacific countries and least developed countries to issue a joint communiqu criticising the proposals intent to undermine the right of developing countries to have these flexibilities.

Philippine Ambassador Manuel Teehankee and Indonesian Ambassador Gusmadi Bustami stressed the G-33 stands firm on its current proposal and the level of compromise will depend on what will happen in the discussion not just on the SP/SSM but on other issues as well, like Sensitive Products and formula for tariff cuts. While Indonesia, Brasil and the Philippines have expressed their commitment to conclude the stalled negotiations, Teehankee cautioned the Philippines will not sign on to a bad deal.

Discussions on the NAMA were just as intense, featuring speakers from the Philippines and South Africamembers of NAMA-11, and Ambassador Trevor Clarke of Mauritius, representing the Small and Vulnerable Economies (SVE) group.

The WTO website defines NAMA as all products not covered by the Agreement on AgricultureIt includes manufacturing products, fuels and mining products, fish and fish products, and forestry products. They are sometimes referred to as industrial products or manufactured goods.

At the ministerial conference in December 2005, the NAMA-11 moved to insert Paragraph 24 in the Hong Kong Declaration to strengthen the argument that development should be at the center of NAMA negotiations. According to South African Ambassador Faizal Ismael, the intent of Paragraph 24 was for developed countries to not expect high cuts in industrial tariffs unless they are willing to cut their agricultural tariffs substantially. Under the Swiss 15 Formula, which Teehnakee described as having been forced upon the WTO members, developed countries would only absorb an average of 23% cut as opposed to the 60-70% reductions that developing countries would absorb.

Meanwhile, the SVEs proposed to be exempted from formula cuts, to have special provisions for leaving tariff lines unbound, and to be allowed longer periods of implementation than other developing countries, reports Carin Smaller of Our World is Not for Sale.

Speaking on behalf of the SVEs, Clarke said these countries vulnerability had to do with their capacities to produce and to export, their dependence on trade preferences, and the fact that these are often hit by man-made and natural calamities which they find difficult to recover from. Thus, inasmuch as developed countries reached their present status through protection, developing countries must therefore be given the same space to pursue their own independent path, he stressed.

According to Oxfam, if developed countries have their way and force the developing countries to massively cut (or even altogether eliminate) industrial tariffs on a line-by-line basis in an irreversible manner, the future prospect of industrial development, and therefore economic development, in todays developing countries is truly bleak. This is because historical and contemporary evidence shows it is extremely difficult, if not totally impossible, for technologically backward countries to develop without trade protection (of which tariffs are the
main element) and subsidies.

Indian Ambassador Kamal Nath, expressing concern on the impacts of the Swiss formula on the Indian economy, reiterated that Developing countries should not be made to cut their tariffs under NAMA more than the developed countries.

Despite the stalled talks, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy and the WTO Secretariat are convinced the negotiations can be concluded this year and are doing everything in their power to get there.

Smaller, however, thinks otherwise. He notes: We need a fresh start towards devising a trading system focused on improving peoples livelihoods and providing the space for poor countries to develop their economies.


Sources:
Bernabe, Riza. (2006). WTO Kills Farmers. www.asianfarmers.org.
Retrieved May 23, 2006 from <http://www.asiadhrra.org/downloads/03-2006/hkwtobulletin.pdf>

Smaller, Carin. (2006). Trade Negotiators Prepare the Groundwork: but Retrieved May 23, 2006 from <http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/showarticle.asp?search=1539>.

Smaller, Carin. ( 2006). Why is the Doha Round Failing? Our World is Not for Sale. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from <http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/showarticle.asp?search=1532>

ICTSD. (2006). EU, NAMA-11 call for new mechanism to deal with NTBs. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Volume 10, No. 17, May 12, 2006 from <http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-05-17/story6.htm>.

Oxfam. 2005. How WTO NAMA negotiations could deny developing countries right to a future. Retrieved May 26, 2006 from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/joint_tariffs.htm>

World Trade Organizaton. (n.d.). Retrieved May 26, 2006 from <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/markacc_e/nama_negotiations_e.htm>