Posted by WTO Watch Qld on November 9, 2001 at 00:32:05:
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Time changes everything and the distance between Seattle and Doha appears long.
But the problems remain the same."
The Nigerian delegation commenting on the WTO's draft Ministerial text for Doha
.THE NEW ROUND---November 9-13
a) WTO Meeting Endangered by its Own Draft Declaration, Not Bombs
b) A Mockery of a Multilateral Trading System. Who is Accountable?
Comments on the New Round
c) Developing Countries
1) India
2) Thailand
3) Nigeria
d) Animal Welfare
e) Consumers
f) The Environment
g) Web sites for New Round documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) TRADE: WTO Meet Endangered by Own Draft Declaration, Not Bombs
By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Oct 30 (IPS) - The authorities in Qatar have 12,000 uniformed
agents ready to protect the delegations to the fourth ministerial
conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) next week, but they have
no way to ensure harmony among the trade ministers representing the 142
member states.
The climate of international insecurity arising from the Sep 11 terrorist
attacks in New York and Washington, and the subsequent US-led military
strikes against Afghanistan, had raised doubts as to whether the
ministerial conference would be held at all.
But preparations are receiving their final touches for the meet in Doha,
Qatar's capital, for the confirmed Nov 9-13 event.
The organising committee has announced that it can guarantee the security
of the approximately 4,000 participants expected to arrive in the Persian
Gulf emirate next week.
However, no one is providing any assurances about the political success of
the gathering, and even less so since the release this week in Geneva of
the final draft of the conference's declaration, which is to be submitted
to the ministers for debate, and ultimately their signatures.
The text presented by Stuart Harbinson, chair of the WTO General Council,
triggered a chorus of protests, some considered exaggerated - coming from
the European Union and other industrialised countries -, and some that were
to be expected - coming from the developing South and from the group of
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in particular.
The declaration also came under fire from non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) specialising in trade issues, charging that it is biased in favour
of industrialised countries.
The draft document produced by Harbinson, Hong Kong's representative before
the WTO, needs improvement, say European officials, who want the
negotiations in Doha to cover a broad range of issues in order to dillute
and counterbalance the difficulties they are facing in debate on the key
area of agricultural trade.
The draft document covers the principal aspirations of the Europeans by
proposing the opening of talks on ''new issues,'' which include competition
rules, investment, transparency in public contracts and the faciliation of
trade.
But Pascal Lamy, the EU's trade commissioner, complained that the text does
not meet Europe's expectations on matters like the environment and the
relationship of the WTO with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as
far as basic labour standards.
The criticisms coming from the developing world, meanwhile, were expressed
in more general terms.
Speaking on behalf of the LDCs, Tanzanian negotiator Ali Said Mchumo stated
that the final document reflects the demands of industrialised countries.
''Overall, one could say the balance is tilted against developing
countries, and certainly against the views of LDCs,'' said Mchumo.
Along the same lines, the Nigerian delegation before the WTO said the text
is ''unsatisfactoy because it is one-sided... and accommodates in total the
interests of developed countries, while disregarding the concerns of the
developing and least developed countries.''
A Latin American trade negotiator observed that Harbinson's final draft of
the declaration is a variation on the previous version, as the items of
greatest interest to developing countries are now expressed in potential
terms, replacing the imperative tone of older drafts.
As far as the relationship of public health and trade-related intellectual
property rights, a matter developing countries consider particularly
important, the chair of the WTO General Council failed to come up with a
compromise text, so he presented two versions of that chapter.
One version incorporates the demands of African countries, and of Brazil
and India, in favour of maximum flexibility in access to medications,
allowing governments to supercede the patents held by pharmaceutical
laboratories in cases of health emergencies - like the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
The alternative version of the chapter represents the position of the
industrialised countries, which are home to the big pharmaceutical
transnationals, pointed out Mchumo.
Oxfam International, a non-governmental humanitarian group based in London,
says the United States, alongside Japan, Switzerland and Canada, ''are
obstructing attempts to strengthen health safeguards in the WTO agreement
on patents, putting at risk the lives of millions of people living in
poverty.''
The drug industry ''has been lobbying on an unprecedented scale to stop any
threats to the sanctity of their patents,'' stated David Earnshaw, director
of Oxfam's campaign for access to low- cost medications.
Meanwhile, the Global Citizens Movement, consisting of 13 NGOs, charges
that the United States ''has led unbending opposition to the implementation
agenda,'' referring to another key demand of developing countries: wealthy
nations must enact the trade treaties they have left pending.
The Nigerian delegation stated that ''all implementation issues should be
addressed and resolved at Doha, in accordance with an earlier decision of
the General Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b)
(ED: This is a very long article which I have shortened. The full text-well worth reading-is available on request.)
A MOCKERY OF A MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM: WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?
By Shefali Sharma
IATP-Geneva
October 29, 2001
An initial look at the unarticulated and non-transparent process leading up
to the 4th WTO Ministerial Meeting. Many developing country delegations in
Geneva blame the blatant biased role of the Secretariat (Director General
Mike Moore promoting negotiations on a much broader agenda than all its
members are willing to accept) and the bilateral power used by the Quad (EC
and US in particular) both in Geneva and in capitals to change country
positions and break developing country coalitions. The Secretariat says it
is member driven, yet the Director General (DG) has consistently campaigned
for a "New Round" of negotiations in spite of vast disagreement and no
consensus on this issue by WTO members. Why did the first drafts of the
ministerial texts released on 26 September, create such and uproar by many
developing countries? What was the process that led up to that draft and
the one that will be released today or tomorrow? Who is Accountable?
This article highlights certain processes and events leading up to the 4th
Ministerial Conference of the WTO in an effort that Civil Society may begin
to piece together and critique a vague and mysterious process of an
organization that has sweeping implications on domestic policies of 142
Nation-States. The article shows how even blocks of Southern Countries and
their repeated and clear statements have not reflected the final outcome of
key decisions in this multilateral institution. The next drafts for Doha,
released late in the evening of October 27, have yielded the same results.
The "consultation process," as was suspected, has indeed failed to present a
bracketed text that represents fairly the opinions of a large majority of
WTO members.
PART I
A Deeper Look at the Green Rooms and the Informals: HOW DO THEY FIT INTO
THE LARGER PICTURE
The unspoken rule in the WTO is that if you are not present at a meeting, if
you do not raise opposition in a meeting or speak up, you are in consensus
with the outcome of the meeting. A dangerous process that has emerged over
the last year is this "Consultation Process" where by the Chair of the
General Council or a Deputy Director General present at a closed meeting,
now called, "Small Open-Ended Meetings," will submit a briefing of their
"understanding" of the decisions reached at the meeting, or their "sense" of
where members are with regards to positions.
This "understanding" and "sense" is then reflected in Drafts such as the
Ministerial Text and the Implementation Text or the Agriculture Text or the
TRIPS and Health Ministerial Text. As you will see below and as is well
documented by the country statements themselves, this "sense" is poorly
reflected by the people who provide the outcome of "consultations. At best,
it is inaccurate and imbalanced, at worst, it is biased to the interests of
developed and the most influential countries of the WTO.
I. In light of this, some useful statistics based on a survey of
delegations:
Average size of missions:
Developed Countries: 7.38 people
Developing Countries: 3.51
Range of disparities within developing country missions:
India has 6 delegates while Mozambique has 1.
There are twenty-nine non-resident delegations in Geneva. These missions do
not attend meetings; they do not raise an opinion. They are counted as
consensus into the process.
WTO STAFF: 410 from developed countries, 94 from developing. 512 total WTO
Staff
Regular Meetings of the WTO: 10 Daily Meetings. Many of them are
overlapping, so that smaller delegations cannot be represented at even the
regular meetings of the WTO.
Representation at Meetings When some of these delegations actually manage to
be physically present at some of these meetings, how are they represented?
Developing countries have realized that they speak stronger as blocks. The
African Group often speaks on behalf of 41 countries, but rather than
looking at the African group statement as that of 41 countries, it is seen
as a statement of one member. The LDCs have the same problem. Tanzania
speaks on behalf of 30 LDC countries, but it is often represented as
Tanzania. Even though most of the time, at least 6 LDCs speak up in support
of the LDC position (Bangladesh, Djibouti, Guinea, Haiti, Lesotho, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia), the LDC
position is counted as one. Similarly, while some African delegations give
support to Zimbabwe, the spokesperson to the African Group, the position is
weighed as one.
This creates a serious problem of misrepresentation and the weight behind
statements. The LDCs and the African Group combined make up exactly half of
the membership of the WTO.
Selection of Chairs
Why is the Chair of the Committee on Least Developing Countries not from a
Least Developing Country? What is the criteria and method of selecting a
Chair? Who created the Draft Ministerial Text paragraph on Least Developing
Countries? LDC members reported that they did not see the language of the
paragraph before it was inserted into the Draft text. The LDC view on that
paragraph as reflected on Oct 2 LDC statement:
"The section on LDCs is too weak. It does not deal with the important issues
of implementation, accession and the need to bind trade preferences for
LDCs. The need to overcome supply side constraints is not emphasised
enough." Followed by proposals of what should actually go in the text.
Should they not have been consulted beforehand? Who selected the current
General Council Chair? Where is the process of choosing chairs articulated?
Is it written? No one knows.
II. The Ministerial Process: Small "open-ended" Meetings
The Unwritten Rules:
1) There are no minutes. The Secretariat has this year started to conduct
briefings for some, not all, of the small "open-ended meetings" for
delegations not present.
2) Again, these briefings are a reflection from the Secretariat, the Chair
or the DG as to the discussion that took place. Most developing country
delegations question the validity of these assessments since there is no
verification process or fact-checking on these briefings because there are
no minutes and no process to do so. But even these mistrusted briefings are
a step up from the lack of briefings of any green rooms prior to Seattle.
3) These green rooms are "open-ended," but are based on invitation.
Invitations are given to those who are vocal about the particular issue
being discussed or to those whom the Chair and the Secretariat "thinks" will
have an interest. There are no universal announcements for all small
"open-ended" meetings.
4) The meetings are simultaneous, numerous, on weekends, in the evening.
They are announced to some members only at times, at other times they are
announced at the meeting itself. Sometimes, they are announced on the WTO
meeting board. Mostly, delegations hear from word of mouth, by accidentally
walking into one, or they are unaware that a meeting took place.
This creates severe problems in transparency:
1. As noted from above, many countries are physically unable to be
everywhere at the same time, so they are automatically excluded.
2. It is the discretion of the Secretariat and the Chair to decide who gets
invitations.
3. In some cases, even when countries have submitted proposals on a
particular issue, they have not been invited.
Example 1:
Jamaica's proposal on Annex 7 of the Subsidies Agreement was discussed in
one of these "small open-ended" meetings in July without inviting Jamaica to
the meeting. The delegation gave a strong statement on the "opaqueness" of
the WTO process at a July General Council Meeting following this incident.
See SUNS, July Articles.
Example 2:
Though it is "understood" that countries wishing to be invited to certain
small meetings just have to indicate to the Secretariat that they wish to
attend, in the case of two transition economy countries this fall, the
"understanding" was false. They approached the Secretariat with their
desire to attend a certain meeting. The Secretariat told them that they
would receive invitations. They never received invitations. They did not
attend the meetings.
Example 3:
The two mini-ministerials, where clearly a fraction of the membership
discussed the work program of the WTO and failed to include the majority of
the membership: No delegates could say with any clarity as to who initiated
the meetings for Mexico or Singapore.
The broader and larger question is: If these meetings are never announced
and are based on invitation, how can individual countries decide if they
would like to attend. How many of them have the physical capacity to
attend? How is "consensus" reflected as a basis of these consultations?
These "open-ended" meetings are often promoted as a "consensus building"
exercise and as an important function of the WTO process. But some of these
closed meetings actually forward the WTO agenda without consulting the
membership. Two blatant green room processes have been
1) The Agriculture Text for the Ministerial. It first came out in a closed
meeting of a handful of members on October 5. The entire membership first
saw the draft text on October 8.
2) The Investment and Competition Green Room of October 7 and 8. One
delegation walked into this green room by accident and realized that it had
been going on for one day already and that there were papers circulated
within this meeting that the rest of the membership had not seen. In fact,
the representation in that room consisted of only the major powers. Even
some large developing countries were missing in that room.
This is by no means a complete list of examples of violation of due process,
or rather the execution of NO PROCESS.
FINAL NOTE ON PROCESS
There are a wide variety of opinions about the number and types of meetings
being perpetuated at the WTO. These are called, green rooms, informals,
super informals, bilaterals, closed meetings etc. etc. etc. There is no
clarity of the process at all amongst delegations. There are no written
procedures or accounts of all the types of meetings the WTO perpetuates
under its auspices. Therefore, these pieces have been gathered by personal
interviews with delegations, other institutions working in Geneva on
institutional reform and other articles written by individuals and
organizations working with delegations in Geneva.
(See also SUNS, Focus on the Global South, Third World Network Information
Service, IATP-Geneva, Trade Information Project).
For the WTO to stand up to these critiques, it must provide written evidence
of having due process and account for it through the verification of 142
members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) India
TIMES NEWSNETWORK
NEW DELHI: Stung by the draft ministerial declaration (DMD) for the November 9-13 Doha meeting
of the World Trade Organisation which mandates the launch of negotiations in new areas, commerce minister
Murasoli Maran lashed out at the WTO and its secretariat and even threatened India's withdrawal
from the world body.
The DMD's provisions were reported in The Times of India Wednesday. Maran's
comments seem timed to coincide with the 'senior official level consultations' underway at WTO
headquarters in Geneva. The Indian team would obviously have delivered a similar message there.
Voicing strong opposition to the attempt of the developed countries to bypass developing countries in
imposing issues like investment, competition, government procurement and environment on the WTO's
future negotiation agenda, Maran said, "If we have no say in setting the agenda, why should we be
there?"
Maran, who will lead the Indian delegation to the Doha conference of trade
ministers from over 140 countries, made it clear India did not mind being isolated in its opposition to the
new WTO agenda. He saw the possibility of the developed countries arm-twisting the developing ones
at Doha, as had happened at Punta del Este and Singapore. He also saw "some of the developing
countries deserting us". He, however, made it clear that India would stand firm in opposing negotiations
on new issues even if it is isolated.
"I do not think one billion people (India) can be isolated", he said and recalled the CTBT negotiations to point out
that India will not budge. "We want implementation issues arising out of the inequities of the present
WTO agreements to be addressed. We do not want negotiations to start on new issues", he said.
The minister denied that India is not being "constructive". He said: "We are constructive.
But first we should prevent the evilness of WTO". Maran reiterated that he saw WTO as a "necessary
evil". Necessary because it provides for most-favoured nation treatment and rule-based multilateral trade
regime. But it is an evil because "it wants to curb our sovereignty and cut our jobs." He said the DMD
showed that the WTO is becoming a "power-based" organisation instead of being a "rule-based" body. He
said the neutrality of the WTO secretariat is also now doubtful. "We do not know who is making these drafts
(DMD). How many drafts will come. The developing countries have no role in setting the agenda", he added
(c) 2001, The Times of India
http://www.timesofindia.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
THAILAND WILL TAKE HARDER LINE AT WTO
Bangkok Post
Bangkok, 31 October -- The cabinet yesterday told the country's
trade negotiators at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) conference
next week in Doha to reject negotiations on investment rules,
competition policies, trade facilitation rules and environmental
standards as part of a new WTO round.
The cabinet told Commerce Minister Adisai Bodharamik, who will
lead the Thai delegation to the Nov. 9-13 meeting, that Thailand
should support only the WTO working group on trade and investment
and trade and competition policy to continue their studies.
This would allow more time for developing and least-developed
economies to study the issues, according to a ministry statement.
Ministers also said Thailand should only support a review of existing
WTO rules that would help facilitate trade.
The cabinet did, however, allow the ministry to support negotiations
for transparent rules on government procurement. - Kyodo
Focus on the Global South (FOCUS)
c/o CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 218 7363/7364/7365/7383
Fax: 662 255 9976
E-mail: N.Bullard@focusweb.org
Web Page http://www.focusweb.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) NIGERIA ATTACKS ONE-SIDED DRAFT DECLARATION FOR DISREGARDING
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES' VIEWS; ASKS FOR TEXT TO REFLECT ALTERNATIVE VIEWS
by Martin Khor (Third World Network)
In a highly critical letter to the WTO General Council Chairman and the
Director General, the Nigerian delegation has requested that alternative
views from developing countries be indicated in a revised draft of the
Ministerial Declaration "so as to give the Ministers the other side of
the story to enable them reach an informed decision."
The letter from Ambassador M.I. Nwagwu (Nigeria's deputy permanent
representative to the WTO) can be considered a first voicing of the deep
dissatisfaction, even outrage, felt by many developing countries'
representatives over the second draft Declaration issued by the Chairman
on 27 October.
The Nigerian letter is a preview of the expression of the deep
unhappiness and anger of the developing countries. It criticises the text of being
one-sided, accomodating totally the developed countries and disregarding
the developing countries, empty of content on issues of interest to
developing countries. It cites the text's pushing vigorously the "new issues" in
favour of major delegations, although there is no consensus; and the
launching of new negotiations on industrial tariffs despite many
countries' proposal to initiate a study process instead.
Stating the text "shows not much regard for our countries", it says
there has been a "non-inclusive attitude by sidetracking the views of
developing and least developed countries" and that "there is no level playground in
the WTO if only one side is heard." Ambassador Nwagwu stated that Nigeria
rejected the text on the new issues, TRIPS, trade and environment,
special and differential treatment and the establishment of a Trade
Negotiation Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d) NEXT WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION MEETING NOVEMBER 8-13TH STILL A THREAT TO ANIMALS
PLEASE READ AND ASSIT BY PUTTING PRESSURE ON AUSTRALIA
Contact details for
THE AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE
are to be found at the bottom of their home page at
www.dfat.gov.au
The WTO Ministerial will take place in Qatar on November 8th-13th and will be discussing from an animal welfare issue, how to progress issues on agriculutural trade. The RSPCA has launched this week a new report Hard boiled reality which looks at the problems of improving animal welfare and phasing out the battery cage in the EU and ensuring that the industry is still competitive and can compete with industries using lower welfare standards such as in the USA. The report and a briefing in english, spanish and french, is available from the RSCPA. We would be grateful if you could lobby your trade ministry and ask them to support proposals to allow mechanisms in the WTO to ensure that animal welfare standards can still rise. Further information can be obtained from the RSPCA International section.
David Bowles
Head, RSPCA International
dbowles@rspca.org.uk
Further info Animal Liberation alibqld@powerup.com.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e)
Press release 16 October 2001
NEEDS OF VULNERABLE CONSUMERS IGNORED BY WTO
Consumers International, has carried out impact assessments on
agriculture and services liberalisation in 16 developing and transition
economies from Chile and Chad, as part of its Consumers and the Global
Market programme.
The results of this work show that the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
agreements in agriculture and services are working against consumers,
particularly in developing and transition economies.
Services liberalisation can bring about benefits for consumers, but the
current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) text affects
government's ability to put in place the appropriate regulations, which
ensure consumers access to basic services such as water and
telecommunication.
In agriculture, with the limited access to developed country markets
poor farmers are being driven out by subsidised imports. The impact of
the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) on livelihoods has left many
consumers with reduced purchasing power, limiting their access to food.
The findings of the research support Consumers International's call for
a Consumer Round at the next WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha in
November.
The current draft Ministerial Declaration does not take adequate account
of consumer concerns. By ignoring the needs of the poorest consumers the
WTO is failing to promote sustainable development.
"The WTO will only regain its credibility if it acknowledges - and acts
upon - the call by civil society and developing countries to rethink its
past policies," said Consumers International Director General Julian
Edwards. "This means making consumer welfare a part of national,
regional and global policy-making. It also means that trade negotiations
must be directed towards sustainable development and openly take into
account, rather than seeking to exclude, the input from international
non-governmental organisations."
Consumers International's trade campaign details can be found at
www.consumersinternational.org/trade. The impact assessment on
agricultural liberalisation can be found at
http://www.consumersinternational.org/publications/full_agr.pdf and the
one on services at
http://www.consumersinternational.org/publications/full_serv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------
f) Nothing specific on the environment ---Friends of the Earth International
Even though the draft text's preamble mentions "sustainable development"
and "protection of the environment" as among the WTO's objectives, there
is nothing new in this text. It merely recommends the Committee on Trade
and the Environment to continue addressing the WTO's existing
environmental agenda, including on multilateral environmental agreements
and labelling. The concerns voiced by civil society over recent years
are simply ignored.
To really address "sustainable development" and "environment protection"
would mean addressing the negative impacts of trade liberalization on
the environment and natural resources use and management by local
communities and the urban and rural poor. Trade liberalization alone,
absent measures that promote equitable wealth redistribution from rich
to poor through means that are democratic, inclusive, and economically
empowering, will not bring about development that is economically
equitable and ecologically sustainable. It will only bring about further
environment and natural resource degradation, and will lead to further
human conflicts over scarce natural resources both within and among
countries.
Various other portions of the draft text, such as those relating to
TRIPS (paras. 17 to 19), also demonstrate a failure to appreciate the
links between environment and development. Of key importance is the
draft text's statement instructs the TRIPs Council to examine, inter
alia, 'relevant new developments" which leaves the door open for the
introduction of biotechnology products as commodities subject to the WTO
TRIPS regime, notwithstanding widespread concern from civil society and
some governments regarding such products.
The WTO Committee on Trade and Environment, under the revised draft
text, will continue to be an ineffective body in terms of pushing
forward the trade-environment-development triad linkage because the
draft text merely reiterates and renews the CTE's current ineffective
mandate to study and make recommendations regarding such linkage.
In line with calls of many developing countries for a comprehensive
assessment and review of the impacts and benefits of the current state
of implementation or non-implementation of the various Uruguay Round
agreements, it is necessary that environmental considerations - closely
linked to development considerations of developing and least developed
countries - be integrated in such an assessment, and that the
precautionary principle should be considered as one of the fundamental
bases for trade regulation.
Furthermore, regulatory measures of developing and least developed
Members in pursuit of national health, safety and environmental policy
objectives must be accorded greater flexibility in implementation of
special and differential treatment. Focus must also be provided in terms
of looking at the trade possibilities for developing and least developed
Members vis-à-vis environmental goods and services.
The text fails to recognise imbalances, negative impacts and civil
society concerns
The revised draft text also fails to take into account the institutional
flaws within the WTO that have resulted in the greater disadvantage of
developing and least-developed countries.
Notwithstanding the issues and concerns raised by civil society and many
developing and least-developed countries to the contrary, the draft text
uncritically assumes that the benefits of trade liberalization under the
Uruguay Round agreements have been realized and spread widely and
equitably among all countries, and that such trade liberalization has
not had any adverse or negative impacts on the poor, their communities,
the environment, and on the ability of many developing and
least-developed countries to provide for their peoples.
The draft text completely fails to mention the call of civil society and
many developing and least-developed countries for the conduct of a full
assessment of the impacts of the current pace and direction of trade
liberalization under the Uruguay Round agreements. It simply equates
trade liberalization, in essence, with development, without making any
concrete proposals that would ensure that such development is
ecologically sustainable and economically equitable.
This and other key WTO documents for the 4th Ministerial, published
on or before 27 October 2001, can be found at www.foei.org or
www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/relevantdoc.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g)
The following documents are available at http://www.ictsd.org
New - Draft WTO Doha Ministerial Declaration 27 October 2001
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/docs/Draft27oct.pdf
New - Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, Draft Decision 27
October 2001
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/docs/Implem27otc.pdf
New - Draft Declaration on Intellectual Property and [Access to
Medicines] [Public Health] 27 October 2001
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/docs/IP27oct.pdf
New - Compilation of Outstanding Implementation Issues Raised by
Members, Revision, 27 October 2001
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/docs/imp_iss.pdf
New - Proposed Procedures For Extensions Under Article 27.4 For Certain
Developing Country Members, 27 October 2001
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/docs/Imp_SCM_countervailing.pdf
Draft WTO Decision Addendum on Agriculture 12 October 2001
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/agriculturedraft.pdf
EC Text Proposal on Trade and Environment
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/ECenvironment%20proposal.pdf
Elements For Draft Declaration On Intellectual Property And [Access To
Medicines][Public Health] 21 October 2001
Draft WTO Doha Ministerial Declaration 26 September 2001
Draft Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns 26
September
2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Templeton WTO Watch Qld gumbus@powerup.com.au