Notes of a meeting between Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi, WTO Director General and an Advisory Group of NGOs which he has established at the WTO

[These notes do not purport to be a verbatim report of the meeting; neither in some cases do they reflect all of the points raised in those circumstances where rapid discussions amongst people were essentially endorsing some viewpoint.]

Dr Supachai was accompanied by members of the External Relations Division(Alain Frank, Bernard Kuiten and Said El Hachimi and his own cabinet (Hoe Lim,). The NGOs present were represented by:

Claude Martin and Aimee Gonzales, WWF International
Daleep Mukarji, Christian Aid
David Runnals, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Guy Ryder and Esther Busser, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
Jack Wilkinson, International Federation of Agricultural Producers
Julian Edwards, Consumers International
Mariama Williams, Center of Concern
Martin Khor, Third World Network
Mike Waghorne, Public Services International
Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz and Christophe Bellmann, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development

Introductions

Dr Supachai welcomed the NGOS present. He stressed the informality of the meeting and noted that no comments would be attributed to an individual (although it was acknowledged at the end of the meeting that this would be difficult to respect in his own case and it was agreed that the secretariat would be shown a draft of these notes so that he could see what he was reported as having said).

State of play

Dr Supachai detailed the kinds of activities that had been going on at the WTO and between member states since both our last meeting which took place in January 2004 and since the adoption of the 2004 July Package.

Dr Supachai noted that much of the work being done at present was quite technical, especially in Agricultural where tariff conversion formulae and the possible contents of various 'boxes' (amber, blue or green) were being negotiated (which is not to deny that these have political consequences). The 'difficult' areas had yet to broached.

In NAMA there has been less satisfactory progress, none really, since Cancún.

In services, 71 offers had now been made but he felt that another 40+ were needed to make progress. He has been trying to get Members to treat offers as initial steps that can be renegotiated as the process goes ahead.

He felt that there was agreement with his position that Members should be willing to trade items in one agreement against offers being made by others in other agreements, especially as this applies to the services negotiations.

In the Rules area, he was unhappy that things were not moving; in anti-dumping work, for example.

He felt that work on trade facilitation had barely begun but that the World Bank could help here. He believed that some developing countries were not sure what was expected of them and were uncomfortable about the binding nature of any agreement.

There was also little movement on special and differential treatment. He noted the suggestion that there be some 'graduation' in this area amongst developing countries .

His overall impression was that Members want a balanced approach to the Round. In Davos (which had ended only a few days before this meeting), he had been trying to warn ministers that the WTO needed a scheduled programme and more ministerial involvement. In turn, he felt that they want an ambitious target for Hong Kong - the Swiss host minister was looking for breakthroughs in all agreements in Hong Kong.

Dr Supachai believed that it was essential to have some formulae agreed ( tariff reduction schedules and dates) in agriculture and NAMA by July and there should be a stocktaking exercise to see what results could be booked in Hong Kong.

He noted a string of events that could progress the Round:

* The OECD Ministerial Council in early May
* A Kenyan mini-ministerial in March
* The APEC trade ministers meeting in Korea in June
* A possible China mini-ministerial in July
* The possibility of a strong ministerial presence at the July General Council

He felt that not everything should be left for ministerial decisions in Hong Kong - that was what had fed the collapse at Cancún.

There then followed a series of exchanges in which various NGO representatives either made comments or asked questions:

NGOs: Was it his view that the situation could be summarised as: everybody has to give something if we are to get anything?

Dr Supachai: Yes. But the developing countries see agriculture as the key: that is where the first move has to be made. The developed countries feel that they are always being asked to offer more. He thinks that developing countries should offer something in NAMA to get things rolling.

NGOS: What would be a measure of success in Hong Kong? Is 2006 a reasonable deadline for concluding this Round?

Dr Supachai: For me, I am listening to what mini-ministerials such as that at Davos tell me about what Members see as success. I think we need a critical mass in services. Implementation issues should be seen as negotiable and that would move things along but developing countries are wary of some of this - they have concerns about geographical indicators extension, for example.

NGOs: Isn't the Swiss position too ambitious unless the G8 does something?

Dr Supachai: Yes. This year we are invited to the G8 (which we were not last year, for a change) and it's not too late for the G8 to do something.

NGOs: For example, singling out cotton would help?

Dr Supachai: Yes. Tim Groser (the NZ Ambassador who chairs the Agriculture negotiations) is calling a meeting on cotton next week on this. A move here would show some good faith.

NGOs: How does the reported statement of the Malaysian minister on the undesirability of having to make movement across all agreements square with your perception that ministers are agreeing that there should be movement across the board?

Dr Supachai: I think that her view is that there should be a serious move in agriculture but that there should then be a balanced approach. Brazil seems to support that, too. They speak for most developing countries, I think. The problem is that we're really stuck on NAMA. There is a need for new ideas in NAMA, maybe a FIP-type process of negotiations or a dual formula.

NGOs: The new DG will take over from you in September. He may have been 'agreed' by all Members but will they all be willing to give him full trust at Hong Kong before they have seen how he makes some early calls? Isn't it a bit optimistic to expect too much progress with a new DG?

Dr Supachai: The secretariat has to be impartial. But the timing is difficult with a May selection deadline. It might distract Members if there is conflict over this and that could weaken the impact of the OECD Ministerial Conference, which has always been important to our agenda, and also prevent good work being done for our July General Council.

NGOs: The technicalities are important but the wider political and developmental implications are also important. Failure at Hong Kong means more bilaterals. Yet this is supposed to be a Development Round: would it not make more sense to do agriculture and SDT in Hong Kong and leave NAMA and services until later?

Dr Supachai: I am talking with and will continue to talk with the Chairs of all the groups to keep progress going. But ministers are more conscious of the need for them to make commitments. Cotton will be on the Kenyan mini-ministerial agenda. On SDT, maybe we need some external intervention: the IFIs could help here with some assistance, especially for the LDCs.

NGOs: Back to the issue of 'success' in Hong Kong. The problem is that the Quad is seeking a 'balanced' outcome in an unbalanced world and the July package reflects that. There is a development deficit that is stuck.

Also, the Indian Ocean tsunami and the emergence of the MDGs as an objective have changed the world since Doha. Is it legitimate to see the Doha ambitions as still realistic?

Dr Supachai: Those are good points. For Hong Kong, many Members are worried about defining 'success'. They fear that another failure may set us back a long way. I would like to see something on cotton, a firm date for the removal of agricultural subsidies. On SDT, I am at a loss: 60 out of the 88 implementation issues are not even agreed. We need progress on Rules on RTAs (some monitoring mechanism), subsidies, for example, to make progress.

NGOs: Many NGOs have their own definition of 'success', of development, including the rebalancing of the Rules. Settling implementation issues would help: that and SDT were top priorities coming out of Doha.

Developing countries have 'paid' through TRIMS, GATS, etc. that came out of the Uruguay Round but have yet to receive the agricultural gains that the UR promised. And in agriculture, SDT is not being applied - the tiered approach calls for greater offers from developing countries.

In NAMA, it is the developing countries that are being asked to make the greatest cuts and that face the greatest threats to their industries.

Dr Supachai: Much of what you say is undeniable. I'm not really supposed to encourage rebalancing; but the Quad countries are beginning to see the folly of their own (trade) deficits, the chasing of lowest cost, and can see that it is leading to lowered demand in their own countries.

Yet, many developing countries see think that if they concede something, they'll get at least a little in return. In NAMA, the North also has some high tariffs but South-South trade offer some gains for the developing countries from NAMA.

NGOs: Davos this year was different. Trade hardly featured compared to aid and debt issues.

[At this point, there was a flurry of interventions, including from Dr Supachai, agreeing that this was the case but that this had been an agreed prioritising by WEF participants. The feeling was, however, that the G8 must do something about this and that Gordon Brown, who had not really mentioned trade in Davos, must be pressured to focus on it at the G8 summit.]

Dr Supachai: I am thinking of trying to get Gordon Brown to address this year's WTO Symposium.

NGO outreach

Dr Supachai and other secretariat members outlined some of the thinking about trying to have full access for NGOs to the Ministerial Conference centre in Hong Kong by locating the NGO centre in the same building. The problem is one of space: if this idea is pursued, there is a physical limit of only 1500-1700 NGO delegates who could be in the building at the same time. If another NGO centre is used, that may make it easier for NGO activities but would place limits on NGO representatives access to the delegates in the Conference Centre. There is still discussion on whether it is best: to limit the size of NGO delegations, to allow everyone accredited full access; to allow full-size NGO delegations but then have to place restrictions on access to the Centre; or to change the rules about NGO accreditation to reduce the total number of accredited people but allow full access; or other options. Whatever option or sets of options the secretariat will take, they were advised to be transparent about the space constraint and steps that they will take too be able to maximise access and provide reasonably full services and facilities for NGOs. This is to be explored further with the Hong Kong authorities; Alain Frank was leaving that evening to meet with the Hong Kong people.

There was considerable discussion on the pluses and minuses of all of these options. Dr Supachai indicated that, once this all became a little clearer, he would try to arrange a meeting between the Hong Kong Mission/authorities and NGOs to discuss these logistics.

The 'Sutherland Report'

Dr Supachai had sent everyone at the meeting a copy of the 'Sutherland Report', The future of the WTO: addressing institutional challenges in the new millennium, produced by the Consultative Board that he had established. He indicated that he had instructed the Board not to interfere in the Doha negotiations but had otherwise given them a free hand. He would now be seeking a forum in which to discuss the report with the Members but was very interested in the views of this group and of civil society as a whole. He made it clear that comments in writing would be very welcome. There is no real deadline because he anticipates that he will be handing much of this over to his own successor.

The NGOs then made a number of comments on their reactions to the Sutherland Report. These are not reported in full here because almost all speakers indicated that they were picking out a couple of points and would make more substantial written comments. The two matters which people addressed most were:

* The very simplistic, defensive and inadequate way in which the report dealt with globalisation and the critiqued role of the WTO
* The almost complete absence of a development context in the report, a failure to tie the WTO into the global machinery of development.

Speakers addressed the chapters on globalisation, coherence, civil society relations, trade and environment, decision-making in the WTO and the role of the secretariat and DG. Several speakers did note that the report's self-justification and its weak discussion of its framework undermines some of positive and recommendations it made

Dr Supachai: Please send me your views. I would like to make them available to the Board members and am thinking of putting the Report on the agenda of the Symposium later in the year.

Conclusion

Dr Supachai concluded the meeting by thanking the NGOs present for their advice over the last three years. In turn, he was thanked for his invitation for NGOs to meet with him and for the way in which he engaged with and listened to us.