By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Apr 26 2005 (IPS)

World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on non-agricultural market access have already been bogged down by seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reaching a consensus on reducing or eliminating tariffs on the products encompassed, which are essentially industrial goods.

This week, however, civil society organisations trained the spotlight on yet another critical aspect of the negotiations that has been all but ignored until now, namely non-tariff barriers.

The non-tariff export restrictions that have been challenged in non-agricultural market access (NAMA) negotiations range from limits on foreign investment and measures to promote local economic development to labelling and certification requirements and national standards and regulations.

These challenges to alleged non-tariff barriers have been put forward by WTO member countries in the form of official notifications, in accordance with the procedure established for this purpose. Oct. 31, 2004 was set as the deadline for submissions.

The resolution of non-tariff barriers is to be addressed by the WTO Negotiating Group on Market Access, which will be meeting in Geneva Apr. 25-29.

An analysis of the notifications submitted to the WTO led civil society organisations to sound the alarm when it became apparent that many of these challenges to purported trade barriers are in fact a challenge to environmental, health and social standards in countries around the world.

For his part, Daniel Mittler of Greenpeace stressed, “There is clearly a danger that in the NAMA negotiations, governments are undermining social and environmental regulations across the board.”

These challenges can sometimes reach remarkable extremes. Martin Khor, director of the Third World Network, pointed to the United States’ claim that a non-tariff barrier exists if a country’s financial institutions fail to provide easy loans to buy cars.

According to a press release issued by Friends of the Earth International, governments including Japan, South Korea, Mexico and the United States are planning to use the NAMA negotiations “to dismantle a wide range of national laws protecting the environment, social well-being and health.”

Governments challenging these and other national laws so far also include Argentina, Bulgaria, Cuba, Egypt, New Zealand, Norway, Taiwan, Venezuela and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries, the organisation notes.

“Should governments succeed in eliminating these ‘non-tariff barriers’ they would undo a wealth of legislation designed and implemented to protect people and their environment around the world,” the press release stresses.

As a result, Hall told IPS, his organisation’s position is that “NAMA negotiations should stop to allow an impact assessment to be carried out.”

The NAMA negotiations are part of the overall Doha Round of negotiations, which also include the agricultural and services sectors. Initiated in the Qatari capital in 2001, these talks are running far behind schedule and reached the verge of a total breakdown at the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancún, Mexico, in 2003.

The WTO has been forced to postpone all of the deadlines set for the negotiations since 2001, fundamentally as a result of often profound disagreements between the developing and industrialised nations, which have brought the talks to a standstill.

A newly established timeline foresees the reaching of basic agreements this July, allowing for the resumption of the Doha Round of negotiations at the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference scheduled for December in Hong Kong. The ultimate goal is to reach a comprehensive agreement by late 2006.

Nevertheless, the obstacles plaguing all aspects of the negotiations, including non-tariff barriers, make this expectation seem overly optimistic.

Negotiators from some of the countries that have submitted non-tariff barrier notifications to the WTO claim that it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between environmental protection and trade protectionism.

Khor acknowledged that some of the non-tariff barriers challenged are truly protectionist measures, although others are legitimate measures adopted by governments in the interests of health and the environment, and that it is essential to distinguish between the two.

For his part, Mittler said, “We support non-tariff barriers when they deliver social and environmental goods that society decides that they need to deliver. Of course, there are non-tariff barriers that are pretences for protectionism, and nobody is supporting those, including civil society,” he added.

Nonetheless, he stressed, there are also clear examples of social and environmental regulations being declared non-tariff barriers. “There are constant attempts by industry lobbies in the United States, for example, but also by some governments, to portray all rules that protect people and the environment as barriers to trade, and this cannot be,” he said.

“Trade needs to deliver sustainable development and therefore must respect social and environmental rules when they need to be there to protect health,” he concluded.

Excerpt: