It's Your Turn
Current Consultations
Trade and Development Roundtable
Asia-Pacific Foundation
Pan-Pacific Hotel, Vancouver, British Columbia
June 24, 2002
Table of Contents
Summary:
The meeting focused on a great variety of the issues relating to trade and development, in a wide-ranging, free and frank exchange of views. The Asia-Pacific Foundation's work was very pro-active
in its undertakings with the department, and released details of a survey of Canadian attitudes to
trade, which was developed specifically for this meeting and which is provided on this site.
Participants came from a wide variety of backgrounds and locations in B.C. The tenor of the
discussion was mixed in its support of or opposition to trade and development, with strongly-held
opinions on both sides. If there was a consensus, it could be said that the participants agreed that
ensuring trade and development for the developing world was a crucial element of the Doha
Development Agenda.
Speakers:
John Wiebe, the President of the Asia-Pacific Foundation (APF), opened the meeting with the
thought that the key question of the day was how do developing countries deal with negotiations
on trade, particularly in the new "Doha Round" that was launched in November at Doha, Qatar.
He gave China as an important example of a developing country that had benefited from
expanded trade and would be an important player at the table in the new round, as it had recently
joined the WTO.
Len Good, the President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), noted that
trade is a new area for CIDA to be involved in, as the agency's focus had historically been
development, but Doha has forced the agency to examine trade and tariff issues within the
context of development. He gave his impressions, going back to the Kennedy and Tokyo trade
rounds, that developing countries were not that "at home" at the GATT in Geneva. In the
Uruguay round, he suggested that there was some attention given to the developing world, and
the backtracking on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (or MAI), and the negative
experience of the Seattle ministerial, indicated that the developing world could not be ignored.
He suggested that the global trading system is not exclusively in the hands of the developed
world and that it shows there must be "global solutions to global problems" and hat most of the
important problems facing the world are global issues, that need more involvement of the
developing countries to be solved. He suggested that the G-8 group of countries was becoming
less self-centred and more focused on developing countries, noting that in Genoa the G-8
established a global health fund, and that at their June Kananaskis meeting the new partnership
for Africa's development, or NEPAD, was the focus of discussion.
Mr. Good was at the Doha WTO meeting, and in his mind, "the developing country presence
was very real and very important." He said that special and differential treatment for Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) was the focus of many discussions and that "capacity-building was
mentioned in every paragraph. Now, we are struggling to see what the expression 'development
round' really means." He noted a number of key areas that came up for discussion at Doha:
- the "supply side" of trade (the production of goods in the global marketplace);
- market access for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to the industrialized world;
- dealing on tariffs for "products of importance" to developing countries.
On the plus side, he noted that CIDA and UNCTAD have been working closely to develop a greater
policy coherence not seen in Ottawa in a long time. With the prime minister's market access package
and preparations for the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun in 2003, he said "there is a long way
to go and not a whole lot of time to get there."
Yuen Pao Woo of the Asia Pacific Foundation (APF) introduced the foundation's survey on aid
and trade, undertaken by the APF and Decima Research. The survey found Canadians are
compassionate when it comes to providing foreign aid to poor countries: 71 per cent of those
surveyed feel it is important for Canada to provide foreign aid. However, when asked about
Prime Minister Chrétien's commitment to increase Canada's aid budget by 8 per cent per year for
each remaining year in his term of office, only 51per cent of those polled support this increased
spending. "Our generosity is tempered", he suggested.
When asked if they would accept the loss of 10,000 jobs - a figure based on a very conservative,
almost worst-case scenario of job losses in an economy open to the developing world - the
numbers declined to 31 per cent. Of Canada's regions, Quebecers supported "tied aid" the least,
followed by Atlantic Canadians.
Jennifer Deveney of the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation, was pleased to
offer "an NGO perspective" on trade and development. She said she fears the way things are
going in the world, and that there seems to be "a lack of respect" for the work undertaken by
NGOs. She made a comparison with 15 years ago "when we believed we were on threshold of a
new opportunity" in the developing world. She said that she does not hear the voices of youth in
Canada's policies on fairness and sustainability, notably at the preparations for the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Bali, where she suggested there was a lot of "power-tripping and deals being cut behind closed doors."
She suggested that increased access to the North for the developing countries will mean greater
production for the North, and she is not sure how "economic benefits" will translate into other
benefits. "Until these voices are framed in equity, we are in jeopardy as a species." She warned
that "trade should be based in social interaction and respect", and if it is not, "we will see the
numbers of demonstrations increase." She suggested a number of principles to accompany
greater trade access,
- workplace assessments of labour and environmental standards
- a commitments to employment of youth
- a commitment to sustainable development
- legally-binding corporate accountability
- the creation of a scientific advisory panel
"I hope we do not continue to backtrack", she said, and closed with the comment that "we may
live in a world that does not have cost-benefit accounting. But there are costs - including
respect, fairness and dignity - which are all key aspects of the discussion."
Christopher Thomas, Managing Partner, Thomas and Associates, an Ottawa law firm specializing
in international trade, said trade issues are so complex that it would be very difficult to provide a
"tour d'horizon" of the issues. He noted that there are some trends emerging that make him
optimistic: for example, the convergence of trade and development issues, embodied in the Oxfam
report. He said this shows "Oxfam recognizes that trade within a rules-based system does create
wealth" and added that Oxfam had estimated that is each region of the world increased trade with
the developing countries by 1 per cent, that 128 million people would be taken out of poverty.
He was critical of the problems of agriculture - what he referred to as "the most distorted area of
trade" - in that US President Bush is courting the farm vote, and the EU and Japan are joining in
the support of farmers with huge subsidies. He said there is a belief that the US and EU are the
worst initiators of anti-dumping cases at the WTO, while in reality it is the Indian government
that is the biggest offender. He suggested one of the biggest problems is that while there is a
push for capacity building for developing countries, the problem is the disparity between the
small and large nations, and between the "rules as they are written." He believes it will take "a
long time" to get the developing countries fully active at the WTO, adding that while people talk
about trade and development there are many other "trade and" issues: education, debt reduction,
graft, corruption and legal reform. "They may be outside the WTO, but they are crucial."
On the issue of labour standards, he noted that the WTO had refused a linkage with trade and
said the appropriate place for labour issues was the International Labour Organization (ILO),
where here were some 150 conventions on labour. Unfortunately, there is a gap between the
application of the conventions by member countries. He said "if there was adherence to the ILO
conventions, the world would be a better place." On the issue of openness, he pointed out that
"for 40 years, few people paid attention to the GATT", and although there are industrialized
countries like the US who want the WTO to be opened up, the developing countries do not want
too much openness.
He closed by saying that there are over 140 member states in the WTO, and they have to consult
with their governments, what he described as "this cacophony of public discussion, and the
fighting out of producer and consumer interests defies easy categorization, but it is the world we
live in. (The WTO) is making incremental progress, but have done a lot in the past five years."
Discussion:
The discussion opened with a comment by a participant that there was a "discrepancy between
the rhetoric and action of the WTO, and at the UN, but that the WTO has superseded the UN"
and the American decision to ignore the International Court of Jsutice was indicative of that.
Chris Thomas said the WTO has not superseded the UN, and that Canada participates actively in
both. He noted the ICJ was very separate from the WTO.
A participant who is a film maker, and who was with the UN for 15 years agreed with
Christopher Thomas that Multilateral negotiations are very complex and that the UN is in a bind
as it can only do what member states favour. He pointed out hat there used to be gap between
the GATT and UNCTAD in terms of effectiveness view from developing countries. He asked
Len Good if the gap still exists, and Yuen Pau Woo if the survey respondents have knowledge of
the plight of poor countries plight: i.e., the difference between LDC's and developing countries?
Len Good replied that the developing world viewed UNCTAD as ineffective in the past, but that
now it is seen as more effective, with Rubens Ricupero as Secretary-General, although it still has
quite a long way to go.
Yuen Pau Woo suggested that if Canadians do not know the difference between LDC and
developing country status, then perhaps UNCTAD not doing a proper job in terms of educating
Canadians of the difference. He also mentioned that even with all the help given to Bangladesh,
it will take at least 25 years until it leaves LDC status
A question was addressed to Len Good as to whether CIDA might put more money in- country
to specific sectors, and he agreed that more money should be given to southern NGO's, but
warned that there is a lot of red tape, and argued that there needs to be an exemption from
requirements to use Canadian organizations
An entrepreneur said she was disappointed that there had been no specific mention of China and
the WTO in the APF survey. She suggested that increased access to poor countries finds the
strongest support in Montreal perhaps because of the number of people in the city that have
come from developing countries. John Wiebe replied that China does indeed need specific
capacity building.
Yuen Pau Woo said that China is a country to watch as it will probably seek a leadership role in WTO in the
coming years. Later, there was mention of the brain drain from China. Yuen Pau Woo said that in a country
such as China, the countries best are leaving the country, however this is temporary Chinese people are
leaving country to improve their skills abroad and return - thus the "brain drain" should be reversed
An International Development Consultant argued that Canadian values needed to be promoted
abroad, and there was a need to link these values with textiles
Yuen Pau Woo said that this would be possible through bilateral agreements: ie the US-Jordan
Textile Agreement, whereby textile import quota increases with further compliance with labor
standards, and he also mentioned that the ILO could have a role in this case. Len Good
explained that in CIDA there are few fundamental Canadian values that cannot be compromised
including:
- Gender discrimination
- Genital mutilation
But it was very difficult to impose our "evolved" standards on other countries ie: imposing
multiparty system on a country that has a party system based on ethnic background.
Chris Thomas said the WTO does not permit Canada (or any other country for that matter) to
restrict products from countries that do not meet Canadian standards, to prevent unilateralism, or
else the system would collapse
Jennifer Deverney said that the WTO promotes corporate over individual interests, and she stressed the need
for ethics. If Canadian standards (wages and environmental) are enforced on developing world, then
companies will leave for other countries, and therefore an enforcement mechanism is required to keep
companies from leaving.
Christopher Thomas responded that not all countries would be able to afford these standards, and therefore,
more access for developing countries to power in the WTO will lift them out of poverty. He said that other
systems cannot be dictated to, and that cool, rational thinking was needed to help companies promote social
responsibility in the developing world.
An entrepreneur suggested that 70 per cent of Canadian aid is lost to graft, and asked how is
CIDA progressing with laws that deal with corruption and how do we solve?
Len Good did not agree with the 70 per cent figure and stated that graft in aid through CIDA is
negligible as CIDA is project oriented and Canadian Executing Agencies are put through a
thorough screening process. He said that CIDA is moving away from undertaking its own
projects and putting money into supporting country sector strategies, although the countries in
question must have secure and transparent accounting process
Another participant said that he had headed one Asia Development and one World bank project and three
CIDA Bilateral projects, and agreed that it was very difficult to misuse CIDA funds. He noted that in his
opinion, the World Bank and ADB have less stringent measures
The panelists were challenged by a participant: "If they could do just one thing in international trade, what
would it be?"
- Christopher Thomas: within 3-5 years, elimination of footwear and apparel tariffs of all WTO countries
- Len Good: change attitudes
- Yuen Pau Woo: elimination of all tariffs of LDC's
- Jennifer Deverney: WTO to promote real free trade and proper environmental standards
Interesting Links:
Trade Negotiations and Agreements website
Asia Pacific Foundation
Canadian International Development Agency
British Columbia Council for International Cooperation
Back to "It's Your Turn" Main Menu
|
