Jul 20, 1998

TRANSPARENCY OF WTO DECISION-MAKING DUCKED

Geneva, 17 July (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The demand voiced by many developing countries at Singapore at the final informal plenary of heads of delegations for "transparency" among members of decision-making within the WTO appears to be ending up as how to provide information about WTO activities to non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

At Singapore, many developing country delegations and their ministers felt completely frustrated by the informal consultation processes among a relatively small number of delegations on issues that were of priority interest to the developed world -- information technology (with the side negotiations between US and EC for sectoral zero-tariff negotiations on spirits and a few other items), efforts to get new issues on the WTO agenda such as investment, competition, 'trade-linked labour standards' and environment negotiations.  

The major agenda before that first meeting, "implementation of the Marrakesh agreement" figured only in speeches of ministers to near-empty plenary halls; the initial attempts of the WTO leadership that the subject had been covered in the plenary met with some outraged comments from the media and non-governmental organizations of the developing world. The Southern NGOs in particular sharply brought up, and convinced many of the development NGOs of the North, that a priority objective should be to demand that the WTO processes (of discussion and consideration of issues) and decision-making should be made fully transparent to their own governments and delegations, and civil society should be able to know about these matters and take the issues to their own public and government, before commitments are made at the WTO.  

At the final press conference, WTO Director-General Renato Ruggiero agreed that this was a problem, and promised (as part of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trading system) to work to bring about "transparency with efficiency" inside the system.  

His initial efforts to start the "transparency" process among delegations, through regular "informal heads of delegations" meetings, quickly was brought to a halt - caught up in differences over the role of the Director-General and the secretariat within the WTO treaty and that of the official WTO bodies (starting with the General Council).  

The US and other majors prefer the non-transparent processes of setting the negotiating agendas of the WTO and decision-making in concentric circles of consultations -- beginning with bilateral US-EC talks, talks among the Quad (Canada, EC, Japan and US), and then an amorphous circle of other delegations, the socalled "invisibles", and discussions over lunches and dinners, and then brought before the full membership, with the formal meetings no more than a 'recording' exercise for decisions already taken. They thus did not want anything else to come in the way.  

And some of the developing country delegations (who anyhow could not be ignored in any decision-making process, since they could say 'no'), were also somewhat chary of the role of the DG and secretariat -- more so when, at one of the informal meetings (after Singapore), the Director-General would appear to have made the comment that no issue (new or on WTO agenda) could be excluded from the discussions.  

But suspicious of the secretariat's role in pushing the new issues on the WTO agenda, and the way studies were prepared and issued by it, key developing country delegations too wanted to keep the process under their control, and that of the WTO bodies, noting that the WTO treaty (unlike the UN Charter or charters of specialised agencies) limited the role of the secretariat.  

And the United States, trying to 'cater' to its 'environmental lobby', and more so to that section which tried to preserve the "quality" of life through environmental protection actions, including through unilateral trade restrictions, reduced the 'transarency' demand to 'information for civil society' and began pushing for allowing NGOs to participate in some (but not negotiating or decision-making) meetings and present briefs to dispute panels, and to make some documents and reports public.  

At the Geneva Ministerial meeting, where the public demonstrations from citizens groups became confrontational, while the groups made clear that their opposition was to the "neo-liberal" trade system, the US used it to bring up the (limited) NGO participation issue. The Director-General also floated the idea of an NGO forum with which he and WTO officials could meet regularly and exchange views.  

This idea was taken up by a section of Northern NGOs, but the proposal was shot down by several others - who said the fundamental issue remained "transparency" of decision-making, beginning with transparency of the WTO processes to their own governments. But one of the groups, the ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development), an umbrella centre set up as a result of an initiative of the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), after a "consultation" process, has presented a memorandum to the General Council chairman -- "civil society statement on openness, transparency and access to documents in the WTO".  

Signed by 96 groups out of 302 who were 'consulted', this called on the General Council (in the review of document derestriction) for derestricting and making available to NGOs and public agendas, issue papers/documents, notes and minutes of meetings of WTO Council and subordinate bodies, position taken on items by WTO members, as well as other relevant documents except for "strict negotiating texts". These also called mechanisms to make available to WTO members inputs from NGOs in terms of background documents NGOs request to be distributed, and for NGOs "with relevant knowledge" to be invited to make submissions as experts before dispute panels.  

Many of the 302 groups consulted, but who had not signed on as of 10 July, included several prominent and leading NGOs of the South and of the North too - who were not opposed to derestriction and publication, felt this did not meet the real issue of the secrecy and non-transparency of the WTO system, and its functioning in the interests of the majors and their corporations. 

In a paper to the General Council, the US made more less similar proposals, including issues relating to the dispute settlement panels and publication of its rulings. The US in particular has proposed that simultaneously with rulings being made available to parties, findings and conclusions in all languages should be circulated to all members and made public, even if issuance of full reports in all languages take time. This issue, the US said, should be discussed and decided at the General Council, rather than as part of the process of the WTO mandated review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) which has been initiated in the DSB.  

The US view was supported by the EC, and more or less by Canada, which also wanted greater use of workshops and symposia by the WTO to keep the NGOs and public informed.  

But a number of developing country delegations drew a distinction between 'internal transparency' or the WTO obligations of "transparency" among members, and 'transparency' to the outside world and the need to keep civil society informed, and said that the WTO being an intergovernmental organization of members with contractual rights and obligations, the members were there to negotiate with other members, and not with "civil society" as such, and that it was the responsibility of each government to take steps to inform its civil society and discuss with them and generally promote acceptance of what has been agreed to at the WTO. 

They also made clear that the question of "derestriction" of panel rulings and their being made available immediately to all the members should be part of the DSU review process.  

A number of delegations, while supporting greater transparency, said that if the minutes of meetings and some of the documents were to be made available to the public (and the NGOs), it would result in members not being frank at the meetings.  

But several developing countries diplomats politely noted in the informal and formal General Council meetings, and in private have expressed themselves more forcefully in informal talks with others. They complain that "transparency" among members, a contractual right and obligation, and transparency of decision-making (the demand at and after Singapore) has been turned around and made into a case of "derestricting documents" and publishing them.  

But even derestriction (as proposed) and the consultations and symposia with 'civil society' may not resolve the real problem being faced by the WTO system, where the ordinary public do not find the promised benefits coming, and have become suspicious even more, not only of the close links between business and governments in their own countries, but even more at the international level, in the WTO and international trading rules.  

In a decision adopted Thursday, the General Council agreed to derestriction of WTO documents, but with some exceptions such as: 

• working documents in all series -- draft documents such as agendas, decisions and proposals, as well as other working papers (issued in the -/W/- series or in the Spec- series);
  These are to be derestricted upon adoption of the report or decision pertaining to them or considered for de-restrictions six months after circulation. But working documents relating to BOP consultations, Committee on Market Access, Committee on Trade and Development and Trade Policy Review Mechanism are to be "considered" for derestriction at the end of each six-month period.
• documents in the Secret series (those relating to modification or withdrawal of concessions under Art. XXVIII of GATT 1994);
  These are to be derestricted upon completion of the process through certification of changes in the schedules.
• Minutes of meetings of all WTO bodies (other than minutes of the TPRB, Trade Policy Review Body), including summary records of sessions of the Ministerial Conference;  
  These are to be considered for derestrictions six months after.
• documents related to the TPRB which are to be derestricted on expiry of embargo; 
• documents of the working party on accession;
  These are to be derestricted on adoption of the report of the working party. 
• documents submitted to the secretariat by a member for circulation, where the member has requested it be restricted;
• reports of panels in accordance with DSU provisions.

In a statement at the Council, and at a press conference on Friday, Ruggiero announced that a special website with access for NGOs for derestricted documents would be set up, and that the WTO would start regular briefing sessions for NGOs, and will advise each month WTO members of documents made available by NGOs which members could get on request. 

At his press conference, in outlining the steps he was taking for making information more easily available, and for consultations with NGOs, Ruggiero suggested that the issue of derestriction of documents should not be exaggerated. At a lunch with some NGO leaders on Thursday, he said, he had outlined his ideas, and his willingness to meet regularly and hold a dialogue with a smaller group of NGOs, leaving it to them to choose a representative group, "not the more traditional ones". This work he said would be undertaken by the ICTSD.  

According to information later made available by trade officials the eight NGO 'leaders' with whom Ruggiero had lunch to discuss the WTO-NGO cooperation were:  

Mr. Ricardo Mendez-Ortiz (Executive Director of ICTSD), Mrs. Margaret Flaherty (Programme Manager of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development), Mr. Charlie Arden-Clarke (Head of Trade and Investment Unit of the World Wide Fund for Nature), Mr. David McDowell (Director-General of the IUCN), Mr. Costas Karpartis (Secretary-General of the International Organization of Employers), Mr. Bill Jordan (General Secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions); Mrs. Maria Livaos Cattaui (Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce) and Mr. David Runnals (Director of Trade Programme of the Ottawa-based International Institute for Sustainable Development). 

No information was immediately available on how the organizations and representatives were chosen.