news analysis advocacy
AfricaFocus Bookshop
New Gift CDs
China & Africa
tips on searching

Search AfricaFocus and 8 Partner Sites



Visit the AfricaFocus
Country Pages

Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
Côte d'Ivoire
Equatorial Guinea
São Tomé
Sierra Leone
South Africa
South Sudan
Western Sahara

Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!         More on politics & human rights | economy & development | peace & security | health

Print this page

Africa: Trade Talks Skip Priority Issues

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Apr 23, 2006 (060423)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

The European Union and the United States blamed each other for the failure to progress in world trade talks, as a "mini-ministerial" scheduled to complete the next stage of negotiations before the end of April was again postponed earlier this month. But African countries say there are more fundamental flaws. Recent statements by African trade ministers and by non-governmental analysts point out that priority African issues supposed to be included in this "development round" are still being sidelined.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains two articles from the Third World Network Info Service, one reporting on the Conference of African Trade Ministers in Nairobi on April 12-14 and the other summarizing a non-governmental coalition statement opposing "invitation-only" WTO negotiation sessions from which most member states are excluded.

Previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on trade issues are available at

Additional updates from Third World Network are available at

For "Geneva Update," a regular critical update on international trade talks produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, see

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

African Ministers Reject "Partial Modalities" Approach to WTO April Deadline

By Martin Khor (TWN), Nairobi 17 April 2006

TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues

Third World Network

African Trade Ministers have declared that the WTO modalities on agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) that are scheduled to be concluded at the end of April must be "all-inclusive" and indicated that they would not accept "partial modalities" that leave out issues of concern to African countries.

This rejection, contained in a Ministerial Declaration, implies that the African countries would not find acceptable the reported two-phase plan by the WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy to first finalise modalities in what he defines as key issues in agriculture and NAMA, leaving aside other issues to be settled later.

At the sidelines of the Conference of African Union Trade Ministers that concluded in Nairobi on 14 April, some African Ministers reportedly met with Lamy and told him bluntly that they would not accept an end-of-April deal that left out Africa's priority issues such as special treatment for developing countries in agriculture (especially special products and the special safeguard mechanism) and a solution to the problems caused by preference erosion.

The African concerns add to the problems that have cropped up in recent days that make it unlikely that the end-April deadline for modalities in agriculture and NAMA (established by the WTO's Hong Kong Ministerial) will be met.

It is also becoming more likely that a meeting planned by Lamy for the end of April of some 30 Ministers, intended to finalise the modalities, will be cancelled, postponed or scaled down. At the Nairobi meeting, Lamy himself hinted that the meeting might not be held if there is no progress in this week's Geneva negotiations on agriculture and NAMA.

Kenya's Trade Minister Mukhisa Kituyi, who has assumed the position of Chairman of the AU Trade Ministers, said in an opening speech that he did not believe that the WTO members would conclude modalities at the end of this month. This sentiment was generally shared by many of the delegates at the Ministerial.

"How realistic is the 30 April deadline?" asked another Minister. And the head of another delegation said: "After the Hong Kong Ministerial, the EU and US have been blaming each other for not moving ahead, and there has been nothing more in terms of progress."

They were both speaking out at a dialogue session held with Lamy and representatives of the EU, US, Brazil and Japan.

At the dialogue session, on 14 April, Lamy said that the key issues in agriculture and NAMA would be discussed in Geneva in the week starting 18 April. "We'll be in a position at the end of that week to assess how far we can reach at the end of April and what sort of Ministerial involvement is needed, or whether it will be needed."

The Conference adopted two Ministerial Declarations: on the WTO's Doha Work Programme, and on the Economic Partnership Agreements (that African countries are negotiating with the European Union). It also adopted a resolution on regional integration (rationalisation and harmonisation of Africa's regional economic communities).

In the Declaration on the Doha work programme, the Ministers emphasised that the April outcome for the modalities in Agriculture and NAMA "must be all-inclusive and also address the concerns of African countries. In this regard, the establishment of partial modalities that exclude the concerns of Africa and its LDCs Members will not be conducive to a productive and acceptable outcome."

Spelling out areas of concern to Africa, which should be included in the modalities, the Declaration mentioned the following issues in agriculture: the tariff reduction formula, special products, special safeguard mechanism (SSM), preference erosion, cotton and commodities.

It stressed that the SSM should apply to all products, and that trade-related solutions must be found to urgently address preference erosion problems. There should also be full modalities for the cotton issue by the end of April 2006.

On NAMA, the Ministers stated that they are concerned that the modalities "may lead to the de-industrialisation of African countries if their concerns on adequate flexibilities, less than full reciprocity, appropriate Special and Differential Treatment and erosion of preferences are not adequately addressed in the negotiations. Accordingly, we expect the modalities to fully address these concerns and provide for a credible trade solution to the issue of preferences."

At the dialogue session, Lamy reiterated his thesis that the "key modalities" comprised a triangle of issues (agricultural subsidies, agricultural tariffs and industrial tariffs) and that they were the key to "unlocking" remaining issues such as services, preference erosion and implementation issues.

He repeated that the US would have to accept real cuts in agricultural subsidies, the EU and Japan had to accept similar cuts in subsidies and real cuts in agricultural tariffs, and emerging developing counties like Brazil and India would have to provide some real cuts in industrial tariffs.

On preference erosion, which is a particularly sensitive issue for Africans, Lamy admitted that it would have a potentially negative impact and a solution must be found, "but only if we agree on the right sequence."

What this "sequence" is, or whether there should be a sequence at all, has become a bone of contention.

Lamy's statement in Nairobi was in line with what he had told a Green Room meeting of Ambassadors in Geneva in recent weeks, that the planned end-April mini-Ministerial would be confined to resolving "key modalities" which he had defined as agricultural subsidies (threshold and numbers), agricultural tariffs and the number of sensitive products, and the NAMA tariff reduction formula (with coefficients) and flexibilities.

In this Lamy scenario, other issues such as special products and SSM in agriculture, modalities for "Paragraph 6" countries (those with less than 35% tariff bindings) in NAMA, and preference erosion in both agriculture and NAMA, would be dealt with at a later stage.

The African Ministers in their Declaration have rejected this "partial modality" approach to meeting the end-April deadline, and insisted that their priority issues be included in the Agenda. They do not agree with the definition of what are the so-called "key issues", since to the Africans, their issues (such as special products, SSM, preference erosion) are key issues and should not be left out.

Their concern is that if a deal is struck on the so-called "key issues" as defined by Lamy, they would no longer have the leverage to have their issues properly addressed in the modalities, and these would continue to be left aside and in the end neglected or subjected to poor treatment.

The Ambassador of an influential African country, speaking after the meeting, said that his Minister had spoken to Lamy on a bilateral basis and made it clear that he would not accept an agreement on modalities that excluded the issues of priority to Africa.

"We told Lamy that sequencing is all right, so long as it is the sequencing of issues in the same document," he said. "But we cannot accept a sequencing in terms of different timing, that so-called key issues are settled as a first stage, and our issues are discussed at a later stage, as there will no longer be conditions present to properly address our issues once the so-called key issues are settled."

Besides Lamy, also present at the dialogue session at the African Ministerial meeting were Deputy US Trade Representative Karan Bhatia, the European Commission's Director of Trade Karl Falkenberg, a representative of Brazil's Foreign Minister and a representative of Japan.

Bhatia was pessimistic about meeting the 30 April deadline and about the Doha agenda as a whole. "The US shares the concern expressed by many of you today about where we stand on Doha," he said. "We face a significant challenge in meeting the end-of-April deadline on modalities.

"Even more troubling, we do not see a depth of commitment to the goal of an ambitious outcome that we (both Africa and the US) must have to make a deal that is politically saleable and meets the development promise of Doha."

Falkenberg said the EU remains committed and wants real cuts in agriculture. But he could not predict what would happen at the end of April. He sounded a high note of warning to the African Ministers, that if the ambitious market access proposals in agriculture are accepted, then Africa will bear a risk that 70% of its agricultural exports to the EU would be lost to more competitive producers, as a result of preference erosion.

This statement was seen by several observers to be a call by the EU to African countries to support the EU's defensive position of not having deeper cuts in its agricultural tariffs.

At the opening session of the Ministerial segment of the Conference, the African Union's Trade Commissioner Elizabeth Tankeu said that not much progress had been made in the WTO negotiations on major issues of interest and concern to Africa.

"In spite of the Doha commitment to place the needs of developing countries at the heart of the negotiations, the developed countries have not mustered the political will to offer the necessary negotiating flexibility to ensure a favourable outcome of the Round for developing countries," she said.

"In agriculture and NAMA, there has been a lack of progress, with the developed countries being more concerned about protecting their interests and dominant position in global trade than in placing the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of the negotiations.

"This development calls for concerted and collective efforts by African countries to ensure the negotiations remain faithful to the promise of Doha and achieve fully the development objectives of the Round. Africa has the right to insist that an outcome of the Doha Round negotiations that does not take adequate account of its major interest and concerns will not be acceptable."

The Kenyan Vice President Moody Awari said Africa's greatest challenge was its continued marginalisation in world trade. From 1990 to 2003, Africa's share of world trade fell from 3.1% to 2.3%; its share of world services exports dropped from 2.5% to 2.1%.

The Doha negotiations must address the persistent imbalances by recognizing the need for policy space through special and differential treatment provisions in all elements of the negotiations.

"Further, we need to ensure the outcome of negotiations preserves the existing market access of our products and in addition secure better and additional market access," he said, adding that removal of structural distortions in agriculture is necessary to creating a level playing field.

NGOs urge Lamy to cancel end-April WTO mini-Ministerial

By Kanaga Raja, Geneva, 19 Apr 2006

Published in South North Development Monitor (SUNS) on 20 Apr 2006

[in TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues, 21 April 2006 Third World Network,]

A group of 125 civil society organizations, in a letter sent Tuesday to WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, has called for the cancellation of a mini-Ministerial reportedly involving only about 30 WTO Members which Lamy had planned for end April and early May in Geneva.

In their letter, the 125 civil society groups from some 40 countries criticized what they called the WTO Secretariat's instigation of 'invitation-only' meetings, from which most WTO Members will be excluded, to attempt to force agreement on aspects of a Doha Round deal that have been opposed by a majority of the Members.

The groups called on Lamy, as the WTO Director-General and Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), to cancel the ''ad hoc exclusive'' Ministerial-level gathering and ensure that all WTO Members are fully involved in any negotiations regarding the Doha Round.

Among the signatories to the letter are ActionAid International; ATTAC; Berne Declaration; Brazilian Network for the Integration of the Peoples; Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia; Corporate Europe Observatory; Friends of the Earth (Australia, Germany, Malaysia and the US); Focus on the Global South; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Oxfam International; Public Citizen; Public Services International; Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI); Third World Network; and War on Want.

The letter by the civil society groups to Lamy comes in the same week as negotiations are being held at the WTO on both agriculture and non agriculture market access (NAMA).

The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration set 30 April as the deadline for achieving modalities in both agriculture and NAMA.

At a 'Green Room' meeting of several WTO Ambassadors some two weeks ago, Lamy reportedly indicated that he intended to convene a meeting of some 30 Ministers in Geneva during the period of 29 April to 5 May, possibly to try and reach agreement on some key modalities in agriculture and NAMA.

In their letter to Lamy, the civil society groups expressed deep concern over his call for some Ministers to meet in Geneva end April and early May, and opposed such a mini-Ministerial meeting that could lead to critical decisions being made by only a handful of Ministers.

They pointed out that it was now too late for the majority of Ministers to make their way to Geneva, especially when it remains unclear what the agenda of the meeting will be, and therefore unclear if it will be worth the Ministers' scarce financial resources and time.

The groups also noted that Lamy's proposal at a recent TNC meeting that "the establishment of modalities as foreseen by the Hong Kong Declaration will require some sort of Ministerial involvement during the last week of April, with a safety net beginning of May" contradicts his previously stated commitment to a bottom-up approach to the negotiations.

Any negotiations or decision-making process that happens at the end of April or at any time should be all-inclusive, transparent, and with the full participation of all members, as per the WTO mandate, the group's letter stressed.

It also said that the current situation adds to the mounting concerns shared by civil society and many developing-country officials: that exclusive meetings of certain countries to further negotiations in the WTO have become the main negotiating arena for the Doha Round.

The letter cited these exclusive meetings as including the recent WTO Senior Officials' meeting in Geneva on 7-9 March, the mini-Ministerial meeting in London on 10-11 March, and the recent micro-Ministerial in Rio on March 31-April 1, which Lamy attended.

The civil society groups said that the countries that are being excluded from these ''undemocratic and non-inclusive decision-making processes'' are the majority of the WTO's member countries, including the LDCs, the ACP Group, and the African Group.

These are the same countries which now face a Doha Round conclusion that, if implemented, would harm the majority of their populations, as confirmed by recent Carnegie, World Bank, and other studies, because of the manner in which the negotiations process has been dominated by the interests of the rich and powerful countries which have forced development issues off the agenda.

The letter added that if Lamy's call for Ministerial involvement is not to be seen as a willful continuation of this undemocratic, top-down approach, then it is imperative that every member has equal access to the decision-making processes of the Doha Round.

In this regard, the groups demanded that the entire membership of the WTO be invited to be involved in all processes and all meetings with regards to future WTO negotiations. The presence of some Ministers must not become a pretext for exclusive Green Room meetings where decisions are made without the presence of all WTO members.

They also reminded Lamy that Articles 48 and 49 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration make abundantly clear that the Director-General, above all, should be committed to ensure that the negotiations are open to all members of the WTO and that they should be conducted in such a manner that facilitates the effective participation of all in order to achieve benefits for all members and an overall balance in the outcome of the negotiations.

The groups said that this mandate however has been repeatedly violated over the course of the negotiations.

They also voiced serious concerns that Lamy's proposed process is likely to be a re-creation of the procedurally flawed situation that produced the July package in 2004, where only a select circle of Ministers were present at a mini-Ministerial in Geneva, which became the main decision-making and negotiating forum. Decisions were made without the full participation of the entire membership that were as critical as those of a formal Ministerial Conference.

The civil society groups concluded by seeking Lamy's assurance that honest, democratic and inclusive processes, not the interests of the powerful few or looming time-lines, will determine the process of WTO negotiations.

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at Please write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin, or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about reposted material, please contact directly the original source mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see

Read more on |Africa Economy & Development||Africa Trade|

URL for this file: