CONSUMERS GROUP URGES CONCLUSION OF ROUND

9:48 AM Oct 26, 1993

CONSUMERS GROUP URGES CONCLUSION OF ROUND
Geneva 26 Oct (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) and the Bureau of Consumers Unions (BEUC) came to the GATT Tuesday to meet in a show of support for redoubling of efforts to conclude the Uruguay Round negotiations before 15 December.

They were due to meet the GATT Director-General Peter Sutherland and delegates of some of the countries including Japan, Australia, India, Sweden, United States and Brazil. The EC Commission here had been unable to meet them as they were "busy with the GATT Council on 27 October," the IOCU said.

In a statement on the Round that the IOCU and BEUC released at a press conference, officially sponsored by the GATT secretariat and held at the GATT headquarters, the two urged acceptance of the Draft Final Act texts of the Uruguay Round and the (US-EC) Blair House accord on agriculture without changes and further delay.

The IOCU claims to be a worldwide federation of consumers organizations, with 180 members in 72 countries. The seven member delegation at the press conference contained two from the South, one from the IOCU's regional office in Chile and the other from a Consumer Unity and Trust Society from India.

The IOCU statement contained analyses of some of the parts of the Uruguay Round negotiations -- including on textiles and clothing, Trips, Trims, Services -- and passages in them suggesting that the IOCU differed from the existing provisions and would like changes.

Nevertheless, the IOCU statement asked everyone to resist temptation to seek major amendments to the draft text since it would risk 'unravelling' it, and accept the DFA and the Blair House without further delay.

The analyses in the statement took a critical view of the Uruguay Round text on textiles and clothing (for leaving integration and removal of restrictions on sensitive products to the final phase) and of the TRIPs text because of the likely rise in pharmaceutical product prices, particularly on important drugs and life-saving inventions.

But the solutions suggested were much less than the analyses. On textiles it called for faster lifting of MFA quota restrictions on "poorer countries", larger reduction of tariffs on textiles and clothing and reduction in textile tariffs and tariff peaks -- demands of European industry which would not help Third World exporters who would be hit by quota restrictions.

In Trips, it complained the significant impact on consumers in developing world because of the patenting of processes and products in pharmaceuticals and of the impact on Third World agriculture of patenting of seeds or protection of plant varieties and said the IOCU remained opposed to the Trips agreement and the attempts by some developed countries to strengthen the existing text.

But as a relief to developing country consumers, it merely talked of compensating them by "generous reductions in tariffs on agricultural products, textiles and clothes" and a commitment to develop a system to ensure financial recognition of contribution of developing countries (through indigenous species) for products patented later.

Similarly in agriculture it called for special assistance to net food importing countries who would be disadvantaged by higher prices.

Asked to explain these contradictions between the criticisms in detail, whose solutions would require changes in the DFA, and nevertheless asking everyone not to reopen the DFA and changes and whether it did not suggest a division of opinion between the IOCU's Northern and Southern constituents, Stephen Locke Trade Policy consultant of the UK Consumers Association, said that the IOCU felt that on balance they would be better off by accepting the DFA than being without an agreement.

Pradeep Mehta from India acknowledged that farmers and many consumer groups in India were opposed and their complaints were reflected in the statement. But it was a "catch 22" situation, he claimed, where they would be hit if there was no agreement and if there was one. However, they had come to the conclusion that asking for changes in the text could delay the completion of the Round and it was better to accept it now and work for changes later.

The IOCU delegates were also asked why the IOCU was coming to meet the GATT head and preach to the converted on the need to conclude the Round and what they were doing to mobile consumers in the countries like France etc where there was opposition.

Locke and Jill Johnstone (of the UK National Consumers Council) spoke of the consumers organizations also educating consumers in their countries. Mehta said that consumers in India were actually marching and demonstrating, but conceded that they were marching or demonstrating against the provisions in the DFA and not for its acceptance.

Locke said that the IOCU found many changes were needed in the DFA and new questions like environment and competition to be taken into account, but thought it could all be accomplished in future negotiations. That was also one of the reasons, he said, why the IOCU favoured the proposed Multilateral Trade Organization (MTO), but wanted its text to clearly reflect the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries with per capita incomes of below US $1000.

The MTO text, the IOCU statement, said should have explicit acceptance that international environment agreements take precedence over GATT and that the final text on MTO should include a statement on the importance of the environment.

When the BEUC representative, Jim Murray, was asked to comment on the transatlantic controversies surrounding the audio-visual sector, Murray said that culture was a 'social good' and could not be treated as a commodity to be freely traded through commodity exchanges. At the same time it was necessary to ensure 'consumer choice'.

In this view, he thought the GATT and the Uruguay Round should not penalise 'subsidisation' of culture and its performance, while quota restrictions might interfere with consumer choice. However, he said, the BEUA did not have the latest texts and could not evaluate it.

The IOCU and the BEUC were asked how they could take a stand on the theory of 'social good' of culture and seek exemptions and, at the same time, adopt a neo-classical 'efficiency' view of trade policy, economics and competition and consumer benefits, ignoring social good of employment etc.

Locke for the IOCU delegates said they had reservations about some of the details of the texts but that on balance it was better to have a GATT and not have one (because of failure to conclude the Round) and that many of the questions could be addressed in future.