Views of Pascal Lamy, DG, WTO

Pascal Lamy, the Director General of WTO held his first on-line chat, responding to questions from all over the world about many subjects ranging from sustainable development to generic medicines.

Here is the excerpts of the chat : -

Question : Does the WTO have responsibility for development?

Answer : Even though perceptions differ as to what is really meant by 'development' and what should be the means to achieve the end goal of 'development', trade and development are increasingly perceived as being inextricably linked to each other.....Obviously, and this goes without saying, trade cannot be the only engine of growth.....many other pieces will have to fall into place if the developmental objectives are to be achieved.....but there can be little argument over the fact that trade will be an integral part of any such strategy....and even though WTO is not a developmental organisation, by implication, as the body which facilitates multilateral trade rules, it has an important role to play in engineering growth and development.

Question: Many efforts are being made in the Doha Round to help Least Developped Countries access European and American markets (for example). These countries will need substantial technical support in order to meet customs standards of security and administrative demands in America and Europe. What concrete technical support will the WTO suggest to help these countries (besides monetary aid)?

Answer: You are right. The WTO Secretariat has a programme of technical assistance that aims to help the LDCs access their major markets effectively. But we can't do it alone. Many other international organizations and governments are also engaged in these support activities.

Question: How do you see world trade and WTO from here to 2015 ?

Answer: I see it continuing to grow, but I also see some developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil taking greater shares. I see the WTO as a central part of this story.

Question: Do you also believe that intellectual property rights should be within the remit of a predominantly trade-centred organisation, rather than passing them back to the World Intellectual Property Organisation?

Answer: The fact is that intellectual property has become an issue in trade relations between countries as it impacts on the conditions of competition between countries. WTO and WIPO work together. The WIPO continues to be the UN specialized agency dealing with intellectual property.

Question: why is there a view that the WTO operates from 'Green Rooms'?

Answer: The "green room" consultations are only one element of negotiations. For example, in Hong Kong the ag facillitator (Minister Kituyi of Kenya) first did a round of consultations with all the different negotiating groups in agriculture, then reported on these to the Chairman's Consultative Group (some called this the "green room") and further negotiations took place with them. The group was made up of a wide variety of Members and all negotiating groups were represented by at least one delegation. The fact is, that a meeting with all delegations present (149 Members) would be unmanageable and no real negotiations would take place. But whatever comes out of any consultations must be accepted by all Members as consensus remains the rule. If the negotiations chariman or I do not organise these consultations some Members will do so anyway and meetings between different trade ministers and delegates go on all the time.

Question: The elimination of agricultural export subsidies will benefit (almost) all developing countries. But the numbers so far on the table to reduce domestic support will essentially cut "water", which means that some developed countries will still be able to dump their surpluses into the international market at prices below their costs of production, without forgetting the fact that tarifs from developing countries should also be reduced, preferences will erode, etc. This is not something (some) developing countries may consider a successful result. Is there enough room to get a balanced result?

Answer: We have all had a very close look at the proposals from the United States, the EC and G20 on reducing trade-distorting domestic support. It is true that if you make the right assumptions about, say, the US proposal it would appear to cut only "water" but look closely and you will see that it might leave countercyclical payments alone (but it would limit their use) but it would mean a cut in other forms of support. Roughly the numbers are about $4 billion on countercyclical payments and the proposed limit will be about $5 billion but other forms of support in the Amber Box were worth about $14 billion in 2001 and this would have to be reduced to about $7 billion under the US proposal. Other members want much more ambitious cuts from the US, EC and other countries that use high levels of support. We will have to see the exact result but the current proposals would deliver real reductions

Question: Nearly all the Ministerial Conferences held till date, including the HongKong one does not seem to address the problems and issues faced by developing nations such as India and Brazil. How far do you think the WTO setup will benefit the developing nations keeping in view the present trend of suppressing the developing nations? In other words development at the cost of developing nations.

Answer: i dont think that your conclusion is correct....in fact on the contrary, India and China played an important role in the recently held HK Ministerial.....India, in particular, was very active in the agriculture negotiations...so I dont think there is any attempt, even implicitly, to surpress developing country concerns....and developmental issues are a central and integral part of the ongoing DDA negotiations

Question: Sir I regret I cannot completely accord with your point of view. India, being primarily an agricultural country, does not need any more development in terms of agroculture as is at present. However, in all other speheres such IPR there is a minisimal development. It is quite clear that the world economy depends on technology and monetary development. This is not happening in case of India, which is only agriculturaly developed. I am sorry to say Sir, that if we take the case of IPR protection being brought at par with TRIPS, India is losing out as the introduction of product patents, in particular in the pharmaceutical sector, is harming the indigenous industries, in particular, the Indian Pharmaceutical industry.

Answer: India, as you know, is in the lead in demanding negotiations on the TRIPS-CBD issue. It was also in the lead on the recent TRIPS- public health decisions.

Question: Thank you Sir for your valuable suggestions. The conversation was very enlightened.

Answer: Thank you too

(This was a small portion of the chat with Mr. Pascal Lamy and most of the questions displayed here were asked by Srijit and I. The full transcript is available at www.wto.org )