Developing Countries Point to Non-Tariff Trade Barriers

  
While heads of state and the US administration railed against environmental and labor clauses in the FTAA as protectionism, participants at a recent conference in Geneva focused on concrete examples of non-tariff trade barriers. "Negotiating Agenda for Market Access: Cases of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)" was organized by India's Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CUTS) with the cooperation of UNCTAD and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.

More than 70 civil society representatives, government officials, academics and trade mission delegates participated in the April 24-25 meeting, along with World Trade Organization and UNCTAD officials. They gathered to hear case studies of the difficulties of implementing the provisions of WTO agreements on SPS and TBT in such developing countries as Kenya, Nepal, Uganda, Mozambique, Chile, Zambia, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India.

"This is the first time I have been hearing ground realities," commented Erik Wijkstrom, economic affairs officer of the WTO's Agriculture and Commodities Division. "In the meetings of the WTO Committee on SPS we hardly discuss such cases as we do not have access to ground realities."

According to Allan Asher, global campaigns director of Consumers International, a London-based group, "the main criticisms against the global standard-setting process were lack of transparency and participation of consumer organizations." H�ctor Torres, a member of Argentina's trade mission, added that developing countries have comparative advantage in agricultural exports but they cannot utilize this advantage under the present system. "The opportunities offered by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture were not being realized properly because of market access barriers that these countries are facing due to improper use of standards," he argued.

Many current barriers to trade have a far greater impact than do labor and the environment. In such matters as labeling, testing and even measurement questions, what one country considers a barrier another may view as a safeguard. In addition, developing countries often lack the resources to underwrite the stringent controls that are necessary to sell to the European Union and the United States. Some of these controls may be technically or scientifically questionable, but many are necessary to maintain important barriers to disease and pests. The quest for useable standards will be part of the effort to convince public opinion that trade and integration are positive for their societies. At the Geneva conference's concluding session, Mina Mashayekhi of UNCTAD's International Trade Division remarked, "CUTS should organize similar events in Geneva on issues of rules of origin, anti-dumping, etc. and implement a program on WTO rules and market access in developing and least developed countries by forming a network of civil society organizations, academics, research institutes, representatives of inter-governmental organizations, etc."

The conference was a perfect example of the type of dialogue that has been lacking in the FTAA process. Civil society has not been able to present and discuss concrete examples of what it means by the social dimension of trade. All serious studies discount the dangers portrayed by governments; at bottom, such objections concern the political fallout from recognizing "left-wing" civil society groups, especially unions.

The conclusions presented in Geneva could be a double-edged sword for worker and environmental rights activists. If there are problems with the application of other non-tariff barriers, the argument could be made that labor and environmental rights would produce the same effect. However, this type of event at the WTO level shows that labor and the environment are not isolated questions but need to be addressed along with other non-tariff barriers. It is not the standards, but the way they will be applied that has created much of the tension in all of these issues. If one set of non-tariff standards is addressed, then shouldn't global leaders consider labor and the environment, as well?

The Geneva conference was a major coup for the CUTS organization, which has not found great acceptance among NGOs and unions. The dialogue also provided a good alternative method to the civil society efforts that have addressed the FTAA process. Much serious work needs to be done with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank and CEPAL to deepen understanding of labor and environmental questions. To date, these organizations have adopted neoliberal stances favoring flexible standards with little interest in supporting anything more concrete than forums for discussion.