WTO negotiating mechanisms, the various interest groups and their functioning

by Dr. Manzoor Ahmad

This presentation on â Negotiating mechanisms, the various interest groups and their
functioningâ is based on my observation as Pakistanâ s ambassador to WTO from 2002 to 20
8. In this presentation, I will give a brief history of negotiating alliances a
t GATT/WTO, then explain why coalitions have assumed an important role in the Do
ha Round negotiations and finally what impact they have had on the course of neg
otiations.
Negotiation is something that we do all the time whether it is with our friends,
family or at work. While negotiating we try to reach a compromise to settle an
argument or issue to benefit ourselves as much as possible. If there are fewer i
ndividuals or countries involved it can be easier but when there are too many pl
ayers as in the case of WTO, then negotiating a deal amongst so many players on
hosts of issues becomes rather difficult.
In the old GATT system, there were fewer countries as well as items for negotiat
ions. Even amongst those fewer countries, international trade share was concentr
ated in a selected few. In fact, for the first few GATT Rounds, some called the
then negotiating mechanism as a â bicycle built for twoâ with the United States in the f
ont seat and the European Communities in the back. In the 60â s, the Japanese economy
started growing at a fast pace and soon emerged as the second biggest economy,
it along with Canada was incorporated within the inner group and instead of two,
it became a group of four and was known as QUAD. Till the end of Uruguay Round,
the QUAD dominated the negotiations. The only other notable alliance during the
GATT days which came into being in August 1986 (i.e., just before the launch of
the Uruguay Round) was the Cairns Group. This alliance of some 14 developed an
d developing countries was set up for seeking liberalization of agriculture trad
e and removing other trade distorting practices in agriculture.
With the creation of WTO, negotiations became more complex as the WTO covered ma
ny more issues than dealing liberalization of trade in goods. The WTOâ s ambit cover
ed new subjects such as trade in Services and trade-related Intellectual Propert
y Rights. Also issues such as agriculture and textiles and clothing which had be
en practically treated as exceptions were now brought in the WTO Agreements. At
the same time the number of countries acceding to the WTO increased to over 150
(which now number 153).
To cope with the new situations, many new negotiating alliances evolved. The mos
t difficult and sensitive area of negotiations has been and continues to be agri
culture and it is this area where one finds the maximum coalitions. Start of thi
s phase came with the formation of G -20 which came into being just before the C
ancun Ministerial meeting in August 2003. Many other groups emerged and just in
case of agriculture, some 20 different coalitions have submitted proposals or ne
gotiated with a common position.
In addition to specific subjects such as agriculture, new alliances based on eco
nomic integration of countries also emerged. This could be through more customs
unions, free trade areas or other regional alliances.
Let me give you some specific examples of coalitions. The most well-known is the
â European Communitiesâ which is based on a Customs Union. All 27 members of the EC hav
a single external trade policy and tariff. While the EC member states coordinat
e their position in Brussels and Geneva, the European Commission alone speaks fo
r the EU at almost all WTO meetings. The EU is a WTO member in its own right as
are each of its member states.
Other well-known examples are ASEAN and MERCOSUR. In these cases, economic integ
ration is much less compared to EC and accordingly there is less coordination or
 common position on many issues. However, on many issues they do have common pos
itions. Among other groupings which occasionally present unified statements are
the African Group, the least-developed countries, the African, Caribbean and Pac
ific Group (ACP) and the Mercusor.
Besides the alliances based on FTAs or Customs Union etc, there are many allianc
es based on certain specific issues. The groups' members do change some time and
in several cases their names do not correspond exactly to their ranks -- the G-
10 has nine members, the G-20 has 22 members, and the G-33 has 46 members, for e
xample.
Let me give you some details of such alliances which are formed around one or mo
re specific issues.
Agriculture:
G-20: Coalition of developing countries whose main objective is to reduce or eli
minate trade distorting subsidies and other tariffs of developed countries. Thes
e include:
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indone
sia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanza
nia, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
G-33: Developing-country group, including several dependent on subsistence agric
ulture, focused on securing exceptions to agricultural tariff cuts through speci
al products and the special safeguard mechanism. Also known as the "friends of s
pecial products":
-- Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, China, Congo, Ivory Coas
t, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana,
Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mongol
ia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitt
s and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Ta
nzania, Trinidad, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe
C- 4: Cotton producers seeking cuts in U.S. subsidies
-- Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali
CAIRNS GROUP: Agricultural exporters, with low subsidies, seeking radical agricu
ltural reform in both developed and developing markets
-- Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, G
uatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippine
s, South Africa, Thailand, Uruguay
G-10: Food importers stressing the importance of "non-trade concerns" in agricul
ture, such as environmental issues and rural community development. Often have h
igh protective tariffs
-- Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway, South Korea, Switze
rland, Taiwan
TROPICAL AND ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS GROUP: Latin American countries seeking fulles
t liberalisation of trade in tropical and diversification products
-- Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nic
aragua, Panama, Peru, Venezuela
NAMA
NAMA ELEVEN: Emerging economies resisting calls to throw open their manufacturin
g sectors to competition under a deal in manufactured goods, known in WTO parlan
ce as NAMA for "Non-Agricultural Market Access"
-- Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South Afric
a, Tunisia and Venezuela
SMALL AND VULNERABLE ECONOMIES (SVEs): Small-island and tiny states who would ge
t special leeway in a deal on tariff and other cuts
-- This group has a slightly different composition for farming and industrial go
ods talks. In both cases it includes: Barbados, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Para
guay, and Trinidad
LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs): Poor countries exempt from the bulk of industr
ial tariff and other cuts under a Doha deal
-- Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African R
epublic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea, Gu
inea Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Moz
ambique, Myanmar, Nepal , Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia
AFRICAN GROUP: Africa's WTO members
-- Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Rep
ublic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Egypt,
Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mal
awi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,
Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia,
Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
AFRICAN, CARRIBEAN AND PACIFIC (ACP) GROUP: Coalition of former European colonie
s who are mostly united against Latin American producers over the Europe Union's
banana tariffs
-- Angola, Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ca
meroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivo
ry Coast, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Gr
enada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar
, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Papu
a New Guinea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, St.
Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Surinam, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tri
nidad, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
G-90: Includes the African Group, ACP and LDCs
-- Angola, Antigua, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Ivory Coast
, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic
, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hai
ti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mau
ritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New
Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Senegal, Sier
ra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tr
inidad, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
RECENTLY ACCEDED MEMBERS (RAMs): A group of countries which recently acceded to
the WTO, and who are seeking special because they had to meet onerous commitment
s to join the WTO. They include:
-- Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, Macedonia, Jord
an, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Tonga, Uk
raine, Vietnam
What has been the experience of alliances?
By being parts of alliances, smaller countries are able to increase their bargai
ning power much beyond their trade weight. For example, G 20 has become a major
force and most of the compromise solutions adopted in agriculture were those pro
posed by that group.
Another example is that of a coalition of four West African countries i.e., Beni
n, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad who have very little trade weight and whose econo
mies heavily depend on export of a single crop: cotton. However, cotton prices a
re seriously distorted by subsidies from rich countries such as the United State
s. By getting together, they made a strong case and cotton is now one of the mos
t important issues during the Doha Round. Some NGOs such as the hosts of this se
minar the DEAS Centre helped the governments of the C4 nations to better underst
and the WTO rules and use these to their advantage. While the result of negotiat
ions is still not clear, these countries have already greatly benefited from var
ious forms of technical and financial assistance to help improve their economies
.
Another major benefit is that coalition can bring more expertise and resources t
o help understand complex issues. In almost all coalitions, there was some divis
ion of work. This not only involved all in negotiations but also made it easier
to understand what was going on.
Various Groups received more media attention and thus gained public sympathy. Th
is helps them a lot in negotiations.
Working together in negotiating alliances brings together countries of diverse b
ackgrounds and different viewpoints. They have to figure out how to find a commo
n position. This makes negotiations easier to handle in a larger context. For ex
ample, agreeing on a market access cuts in agriculture acceptable for developing
countries was not easy to work out. Once it was agree amongst G20 members, it b
ecame acceptable to almost all the WTO membership.
Despite several advantages, there are some disadvantages as well of working in c
oalitions. It has been experienced that a coalitions may not be able to achieve
what it sets out to achieve. For example, the Cairns Group or G20 could not have
a common position on many of the issues as some members could not agree with th
eir group. This weakened the Groupâ s position in negotiations.
Each country has to decide for itself whether joining a coalition is good for it
s cause or is it going to be harmful. One also has to take account of political
and emotional issues. Some countries joined certain coalitions but soon found ou
t that politically their governments could not accept alignment with those count
ries.