India has been a strong proponent of the view that without a strong package on the services sector, getting together a deal on the Doha Development Agenda would be difficult. In the run up to the Hong Kong ministerial, Monica Gupta questioned WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy on this and other issues.

Are you satisfied with the pace of progress in the present round of negotiations?

I can't say that I am. But what concerns me more is the future. Here I would say that the priority number one, number two and number three is focussed and hard work for a successful Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong this December. We have lot of work to do and gaining a success in Hong Kong will not be easy but it is do-able.

Everyone is committed to a success at this meeting -- which has not been the case with all previous ministerial conferences by the way -- so that is a very good thing. I've said publicly that if we are to achieve our objective of concluding the round by the end of 2006, we need to bring the negotiations two-thirds of the way to conclusion in Hong Kong so that we can wrap things up next year.

What will be your priorities in the run-up to the Hong Kong ministerial?

We need to move first in agriculture. That means that the US and the EU have to move first, the US on cutting domestic support and the EU on opening further its market to agriculture imports. After that the big emerging economies will have to move on industrial tariffs and services.

Then we must ensure that the poorest of our members, who sometimes feel outside of the global trading system, are comfortable with what is evolving. One way to do that is to ensure that they are able to participate as thoroughly as possible in these negotiations and in implementing any accords that may arise from these talks.

Moreover, there may be some economic reform and adjustment that need to be undertaken in these countries. We also need to translate in reality the new trading opportunities arising from the round. We will need a significant aid for the trade package at the end of the round.

How do you propose to resolve the present impasse of developing countries insisting on movement in agriculture before anything else and developed countries seeking movement in non-agriculture market access along with agriculture?

Well, the best way to resolve it would be if the EU and the US did move first. This means coming home with returns that match the level of ambition of last year's framework agreement.

Are you considering a separate strategy to bring developing countries on board?

I don't think that is necessary. Certainly, special and differential treatment for developing countries will also be evident in all elements of our work -- that was agreed when we launched the negotiations in Doha in 2001. But, in fact, there is no such thing as a "developing country position".

Three quarters of our membership are developing countries and their needs and concerns differ widely. India, for example, is among the most ardent advocates of an enhanced services agreement. Other developing countries are less enthusiastic. Brazil wants to export more agricultural products.

China wants more market access for industrial goods. Kenya wants to see adequate technical assistance available, while Egypt worries about the impact of any deal on net food importing developing countries.

Certainly, there are alliances among countries, but they change depending on the issue at hand.

There has not been much progress in the revised offers given by countries in services sector.

Services have now become an offensive area for many developing countries like India and that is good news. This is why a key group of ministers meeting in Paris last month have suggested creating a core group of countries to bring sharper focus to the negotiations. It is evident that without a strong services package, we will not have a deal on the Doha Development Agenda.

Are you concerned about the spurt in the number of regional trading agreements?

As someone who negotiated a great many bilateral and regional agreements, I can't say that I oppose such accords. They can bring value to the multilateral system through the introduction of new issues or through the experience that accrues to negotiators when they are active in regional or bilateral forums.

Also opening trade is largely a good thing however it happens. But the priority must remain on the multilateral system. A multilateral agreement will deliver far more of substance to a far greater number of countries than anything that could be negotiated in a smaller format.

What role do you envisage for countries like India, China and Brazil, which are playing a dominant role in getting together a coalition of developing countries on select issues?

These countries are great powers in the global trading system and in the WTO. It's true that they enhanced their power by joining together in the G-20, but they are extremely important members on their own as well. Brazil and India have a long tradition negotiating excellence in the WTO and before that the GATT.

Powered by