Comercio, parte de la respuesta en la lucha contra un desempleo sin precedentes

Día 3: Según los expertos, el comercio es parte de la respuesta en la lucha contra un desempleo sin precedentes

Ginebra, Suiza, 27 de septiembre del 2012.- El último día del Foro Público 2012, un panel de alto nivel convino en que el comercio propicia la creación de empleo, pero el empleo no se crea solo con comercio. Incumbe a los gobiernos establecer los mecanismos internos adecuados para favorecer la creación de empleo y la distribución de los ingresos. Se concluyó que era conveniente una mayor cooperación y coherencia a nivel internacional entre el programa de comercio y el de empleo.

WTO Deputy Director-General Rufus Yerxa, moderator of the panel, said that "for many governments, employment is now the top priority — in this context, the question of the role of trade is of crucial importance". 

He said that many WTO members are "expressing concern that political pressures to preserve jobs may fuel protectionist actions, and that these actions may actually jeopardize the prospects for longer term growth".

His questions to the panellists included: "What is the effect of trade on jobs in developing and developed countries? What complementary policies are needed to ensure that trade reform actually translates into economic growth, high productivity and more jobs? How can the multilateral system contribute to boost growth and employment?"

Mr Alberto Trejos, Professor of Economics at INCAE Business School and former Trade Minister of Costa Rica, cautioned against "overreacting" to the potential of trade to influence the number of jobs. He said that where trade can make a difference is on the quality of jobs, especially if complemented by sound domestic policies. Additionally, a good trade policy can help in the acceleration of job creation.

Mr John Evans, General Secretary of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, said that one factor in the current crisis was an imbalance between growth and social policies, as growth was not matched by an equitable distribution of its gains. Even worse, now we have collective austerity measures, weakening collective bargaining and lowering wages. The question is how to make better trade policies and reach a better globalization balance.

Mr Yogendra K. Modi, board member of the International Organisation of Employers and  Chairman and CEO of  Great Eastern Energy Corporation, said that India saw the benefits of trade when its economy was opened in 1991 and growth expanded rapidly. Countries must be competitive, and imports are as important as exports. Multilateral agreements are essential. In the context of the Doha Round, to a businessman, the policy of agreeing either to everything or to nothing makes no sense. Smaller, weaker countries must be included in all discussions. Blaming the WTO or trade for a country’s internal problems is wrong – one can only help oneself.

Senator Ricardo Lagos of Chile said that trade can cushion the effects of the crisis on jobs by generating growth, which, in turn, leads to job creation. However, in most cases, there is a missing link: how do you integrate domestic and labour policies with trade policy so that more trade effectively leads to more jobs?

Mr Stephen Pursey, Director, Policy Integration Department and Senior Advisor to the ILO Director-General, said that since the onset of the crisis, global unemployment has risen by around 30 million to over 200 million, and that 75 million of the unemployed are young women and men. He added that ILO research had found that the trade contraction during the global crisis has resulted in the loss of nearly 4 million jobs in India and about 900,000 in South Africa. This was the result of declines in exports to the EU and the US between early 2008 and early 2009. He added that there are about 60 million fewer jobs globally than in 2007.

He said an outright global recession is likely unless the current policy thrust in the largest economies changes. The gains from globalization are not distributed equally, and some workers and firms may lose out in the short and medium term. The Nordic economies, which have been open for the longest, have the most extensive systems of social protection, developed before these economies were rich. Education and Aid for Trade are also important. What is needed is the integration of trade and job strategies in a major way but this would not be easy to achieve in the present macroeconomic situation.

Sesión 30: Emerging Powers, National Interests and the Future of Multilateralism

The session provided an opportunity for representatives of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Turkey to pinpoint their respective interests in the current multilateral system and the challenges that their countries are facing. Most speakers made a plea in favour of multilateralism but called for a change in its current format to encompass new issues. The conclusions revealed that a common agenda for the BRICS is yet to be outlined.

Most panellists stressed the importance of multilateralism and the crucial role that the WTO plays in global governance and in ensuring that the proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) does not affect BRICS economies. Meanwhile, the trend in both Turkey and South Africa is regional economic integration. Among the arguments against regionalism, Dr Lin Guijun, Vice-President of the University of International Business and Economics, pointed out its inability to protect China's trade interests since China is now aiming for increased access to global markets. Dr Umit Ozlale, Director of the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey, said that continuing to reap the benefits of customs unions has become a challenge for Turkey amid the proliferation of free trade agreements (FTAs).

Despite the overall support for multilateralism, the panel members rejected its current format, arguing that it generates imbalances and inequalities and lags behind in terms of development objectives. According to Mr Pedro da Motta Veiga,  Director of CINDES, and Mr Bipul Chatterjee, Deputy Executive Director of CUTS International, multilateralism should consolidate and improve its existing set of rules and incorporate new issues such as climate change and food security. All speakers agreed that multilateralism must be redefined to deal with current global threats and one panellist opined that multilateralism is in crisis, as shown by the recent global financial crisis and the deadlock facing the negotiations.

This "new multilateralism" would be to a large extent shaped to address the domestic challenges facing the BRICS and Turkey. These include: fulfilling development objectives including poverty reduction, increasing competitiveness and productivity in manufacturing and the services sector, enhancing coordination between the private and public sector, and protecting foreign exchange assets.

On the question of whether a common BRICS trade agenda can emerge, it was stated that for now, the BRICS are signatories to a collection of bilaterals. Future challenges include agreeing on trade data, trade facilitation, small and medium enterprises development concerns, investment, cooperation on technology transfer, intellectual property and finance issues. On a possible BRICS common strategy for Africa, Ms Catherine Grant, Programme Head at the South African Institute of International Affairs, said that it depends on how South Africa plays its role as it is often pulled in to being Africa's representative in the international arena. While there is room for coalitions among emerging powers, she argues, whether they will influence the multilateral space remains to be seen.

Sesión 31: Is a Multilateral Approach to Fair Trade Possible? The Parliamentarian Point of View

The session opened with remarks from Mr Mbuku Laka, Vice President of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) Commission on Cooperation and Development, who gave his perspectives on the development of fair trade in his home country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as well as that of the APF in exploring it as an option in francophone Africa. His brief presentation covered two overarching themes: the difficulties that a heterogeneous approach to fair trade poses to African countries; and the need to support and protect "food sovereignty".

According to Mr Laka, African countries such as the DRC face great difficulties in developing fair trade and organic crops. As standards are not harmonized, producers find it costly to take the necessary measures to become certified. These challenges were echoed by an NGO representative working with farmers in West Africa. Mr Laka suggested a new approach was needed to ensure standards were more accessible, including efforts to further institutionalize these systems.

Mr Laka regularly referred to "food sovereignty" as a major concern for his country and others in Africa. He said that rapid liberalization of agricultural markets can lead to insecure conditions for countries like the DRC to meet its own needs. He suggested that fair trade could be used as a way to give producers greater income, thereby ensuring the means to achieve "food sovereignty".

Mr Germinal Peiro, Member of the National Assembly of France, focused his presentation on the French consumer experience with fair trade and organic products.  He echoed Mr Laka's call for "food sovereignty" and the need for countries to be able to feed their own populations.  Mr Peiro highlighted the environmental concerns that agriculture faces and also the role it plays in exacerbating the degradation of habitats, particularly through the contamination of waterways. He called for a more locally based form of food production and consumption in light of dwindling fossil fuel supplies, while also underlining the need for more accurate and transparent labelling systems.

As the moderator, Mr Hervé Cronel, Special Adviser in the Cabinet of the Secretary-General of la Francophonie, fielded the audience's questions. One participant claimed that organic agriculture actually harmed the environment when compared with conventional methods. Mr Peiro defended organic agriculture, particularly its ability to reduce chemical run-off into waterways, while the moderator cited Brazil as an example of supporting both large-scale and small-scale farming techniques. 

Sesión 32: Managing Conflict in the WTO Without Formal Disputes: Enhancing the Use of Notifications and Specific Trade Concerns

In this session, transparency and surveillance were discussed as forms of conflict management in international trade.  Focusing on technical and sanitary regulations, the panel examined how certain transparency measures work at the committee level in the broader context of WTO dispute settlement and negotiations.

The panel built upon the conventional notion of periodic negotiation rounds, in between which trade rules take root through WTO dispute settlement.  The session viewed the work of committees as a corollary to these WTO activities, stressing in particular notification and transparency mechanisms used in the context of technical and sanitary regulations under the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreements. Panellists examined how transparency measures work, the way they are utilized by WTO members, and their nature in the context of dispute settlement.

"Notification" finds expression in varying forms under WTO agreements, creating reporting obligations for actions affecting other WTO members. Within the great volume of notifications to committees, "specific trade concerns" (STCs) are raised by members on matters of special interest within the purview of WTO agreements. Based on the extremely small fraction of such matters reaching formal dispute settlement, the discussion turned to the role of transparency in resolving potential disagreements.

Data compilations of STCs and notifications under the SPS and TBT Agreements showed that almost one-third of STCs reached "resolution" under the SPS Agreement, while roughly one-fifth were resolved under the TBT Agreement.  These findings were qualified, however, by definitional caveats and analytical assumptions, and the panel questioned the "resolution" of matters by posing alternative explanations to the lack of formal adjudication involving political considerations between and within member states.

While it was agreed that notifications enhance transparency, panellists acknowledged that what is not notified remains untransparent. In this respect, "reverse notification" by members of undisclosed measures was mentioned and the panel explored the differing incentives for notification and concealment between agreements, specifically mentioning subsidies. Ultimately, the topic was taken to illustrate a change in perspective towards the WTO from negotiation and dispute settlement, signalling the value of committee review processes and an optimistic tone in response to questions of multilateral crisis.

Sesión 34: The Role of Non-State Actors in WTO Dispute Settlement: Fostering Effective Public Private Collaboration in Support of Global Trade Governance

The session revolved around the indirect participation of non-state actors (NSAs) in intergovernmental WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The panel highlighted NSAs' contribution, and agreed that NSA participation should be further enhanced through increased transparency and access.

The panel brought together representatives of different NSAs and analysed the contribution of NSAs to WTO dispute settlement, placing a special focus on private actors such as business associations, traders or specific domestic interest groups. The debate hinged upon private actors' contribution, which ranges from the identification of the trade barrier and requesting the initiation of a dispute to the defence of the strategic interests of the WTO member involved in litigation or in implementing rulings.

Discussants examined the different channels through which NSAs intervene: direct channels through legal and diplomatic means; or indirect channels, such as lobbying and the use of the media. The discussion revolved around the strategic considerations that come into play when choosing direct or indirect channels. While governments produce norms such as subsidies which sometimes impair business and trade, they are also part of a company's customer portfolio.

Companies' integration in global supply imposes the need for dealing with governments in a manner that goes beyond the protection of domestic interests. Therefore, private companies are more likely to use indirect channels of access to WTO litigation and work through trade coalitions or sectoral associations in order to avoid being singled out as the company behind a WTO dispute in the event of retaliation. Despite the fact that companies may not use proactively the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, it was emphasized that they nonetheless highly value the fact that countries in which they invest form part of the WTO membership. This implies that all WTO commitments are legally enforceable via the dispute settlement mechanism.

The panel highlighted the particular challenges faced by developing countries involved in a dispute when it comes to meeting demands of different NSAs, such as increasing production, foreign direct investment and employment. A further challenge is to ensure that the media and NGOs conduct adequate and timely press coverage at all stages of the proceedings. Adequate information dissemination has an impact on civil society's understanding of a dispute. The discrepancy between the systemic interest of the party involved in the dispute in bringing the measure into conformity and the business interest geared towards an “immediate” settlement for the past damage done is also one issue that needs to be carefully managed by governments at the implementation stage. Governments have to educate private actors about the aims and objectives of WTO dispute settlement.

The panel shared the view that NSA participation constitutes an effective tool to defend members' interests and that it should be further enhanced through increased transparency and access to dispute settlement proceedings.

Sesión 35: The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Past, Present and Future

The session discussed the various challenges for the WTO's subsidies disciplines in the future. Discussion revolved around the need to ensure that WTO members have adequate policy space to address political and economic issues, such as climate change, macroeconomic emergencies and the interests of developing countries, while also ensuring that rent-seeking through protectionism is curtailed. In this context, participants asked whether it was necessary to revise the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM), to leave it to the dispute settlement system to grapple with the difficult policy issues, or whether the attention of participants in the system should shift to meaningful discussions through the SCM Committee.

Mr Gary Horlick, from the Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, provided a brief overview of the development of the subsidies disciplines in the Tokyo Round Code and the Uruguay Round SCM Agreement. He noted that the SCM Agreement appears to have weathered the challenge of the global financial crisis comparatively well, in the sense that governments did not resort to the use of explicit export subsidies. However, he acknowledged that the SCM Agreement was not as successful in restraining the use of import substitution subsidies He also noted that, although the aftermath of the global financial crisis resulted in government bail-outs around the world, only in isolated cases has such action been challenged by other WTO members.

Dr Sadeq Bigdeli, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Waikato, New Zealand, discussed the changing ways in which subsidies have been imagined over time, which he saw as being linked to changing ideological notions as to the proper role of government in a market economy. He argued that the jurisprudence on the meaning of "benefit" fails to acknowledge the role of government in addressing market failure and may also run the risk of encouraging rent-seeking behaviour in the form of unwarranted use of countervailing measures. In his view, the objective of the SCM Agreement should be to strike a balance between legitimate government activities and the curtailment of protectionism.

Dr Luca Rubini, Reader in Law at Birmingham Law School, posed the question whether, assuming that public support satisfying certain conditions is desirable in the area of climate change, the SCM Agreement gives WTO members sufficient policy space to pursue climate change measures that are legitimate from a policy and economic perspective. He pointed to several respects in which the interpretation of terms in the SCM Agreement is unclear: e.g. how to determine whether tax and regulatory incentives are covered by the SCM Agreement, how to approach the question of "benefit" in particular situations where markets are distorted or the purpose of the government intervention is to correct market failure, and the rules on specificity. As to the future regulation of climate change subsidies, he hoped to see a revival of the idea that certain subsidies that satisfy agreed conditions should be permitted even if they cause trade distortions as well as institutional reforms promoting better transparency. He argued that WTO members should assume responsibility for these issues, and that leaving their resolution to the dispute settlement system was not optimal.

Professor Dukgeun Ahn, Professor of International Trade Law and Policy at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University, noted that the provisions concerning countervailing measures in the SCM Agreement essentially permit an importing member to pass judgment on the policy actions of the exporting member. This can be problematic where governments provide indirect subsidies in macroeconomic emergencies, as demonstrated by the countervailing duty action taken by the United States, the European Union and Japan against Hynix following the Asian financial crisis. In his view, the SCM Agreement disciplines were not devised for macroeconomic emergencies and, given the likelihood that such emergencies will become more commonplace, this poses challenges for the future.

Sesión 36: Trade and Public Policies: NTMs in the 21st Century

The session presented an interdisciplinary analysis of non-tariff measures (NTMs). NTMs and services regulation are the main topic of the World Trade Report (WTR) 2012. Starting from the findings of the WTR 2012, the panellists discussed the main challenges for international cooperation and trade raised by NTMs.

The analysis in the WTR 2012, presented by Mr Cosimo Beverelli, WTO, highlighted several critical factors regarding NTMs:

    NTMs have two purposes: they meet a legitimate policy objective and they restrict trade. From this dual nature arises the need for tight legal analysis. Ms Gabrielle Marceau, WTO, presented the legal techniques to assess the legitimacy of public policy objectives. The WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement represent a more flexible system than the GATT's closed list of legitimate objectives.

    Transparency of NTMs is an issue. Professor Robert Wolfe, Queen's University, Canada, detailed the need for transparency from governments (to implement surveillance), firms (to overcome uncertainty which acts as a gigantic tariff for small firms) and analysts.

    Private standards proliferation. Ms Gretchen Stanton, WTO, documented how the private sector is not moving towards harmonization and pointed out the difficulties that this trend poses for developing countries' exporters. She argued how the rationale behind proliferation is the need for firms to differentiate. She stressed the positive side of private standards: their very prescriptive nature may help a new exporter to enter the international market.

    Regulation of NTMs. Mr Mombert Hoppe, World Bank, developed this theme, distinguishing between three levels of regulation: global, regional and domestic. A regulatory reform should select the adequate level according to the specific needs (competitiveness/governance etc.) and the particular stage of development.

The discussion focused mainly on legal issues (the tuna-dolphin case providing an interesting application of many theoretical points touched upon during the presentation) and private standards (customers' need to distinguish and the problem of misleading labels).

Sesión 37: Services Regulation in a Globalizing Context

The session looked at possible avenues for the liberalization of trade in services and mainly revolved around the issue of domestic regulation.

The panellists shared the view that domestic regulation in services pursued various legitimate policy objectives and that the lack of sound domestic regulation of services had negative effects.  As a result, it was argued that further negotiations should concentrate on re-regulation rather than de-regulation.

Professor Markus Krajewski, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, suggested that a paradigm shift in services negotiations is needed: from disciplining to promoting domestic regulations. He suggested that an alternative approach to services negotiations should include the development of standard policy instruments for regulation, focusing on sectors/modes, incorporating regulatory standards in model schedules, reaching out to international organizations and private standards, setting initiatives to encourage "good regulation" and supplementing "Aid for Trade" with "Aid for Regulation".

Dr Marion Jansen, International Labour Organization, criticized the current approach of including regulatory measures as limitations in the schedules of commitments, creating excessive complexity for negotiators and businesses. It was also mentioned that least-developed countries face serious difficulties in scheduling their commitments in such a manner. Dr Jansen drew attention to the approaches in other regulatory agreements (such as the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade): transparency, references to international standards, and promoting (mutual) recognition.

The discussion of the use of international standards in the services field identified possible challenges: defining legal and institutional relationships between the WTO and standardization bodies, efforts to ensure the participation of developing countries, the role of regulatory agencies in dispute resolution and the assessment of the quality of regulations.

Finally, Dr Bernard Hoekman, World Bank, emphasized the problem of the lack of information on the constraints and effects of regulation on international trade in services. It was argued that quite often there was a lack of information on the regulatory framework, its application and possible options at the domestic level. He described the efforts of the World Bank in this area and suggested that a cautious assessment should be made of the usefulness in any given sector and country of binding commitments as opposed to better regulation.

Sesión 38: Are Agreements Occurring outside the Multilateral Process Helping or Hindering Multilateralism?

Panellists analysed the impact that agreements taking place outside the framework of the WTO, namely bilateral, plurilateral and regional trade agreements, have on multilateralism.

Ambassador Fernando de Mateo, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the WTO, said that agreements occurring outside the WTO are positive for the multilateral system given that there is a mutual dependence between both. He stressed the fact that these agreements permit discussions on topics that are not open to debate in the Doha Round.

Dr Alexander Triebnigg, President of Novartis Biociencias S.A. Brazil,  gave his analysis of the positive influence of the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement in Brazil, and criticized some of the latest reforms.

Mr Bertrand Moullier,  Advisor at the International Federation of Film Producers Association, spoke from the perspective of the film industry about the importance of implementing an intellectual property (IP) legal system that guarantees legal certainty and predictability.

Dr Xavier Seuba, Senior Lecturer at Pompeu Fabra University, discussed the problems encountered when IP law is exported to other legal systems, mainly due to the imbalances that are generated. He stressed that in this regard there are limits in implementation that cannot be surpassed.

Dr Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, said that the TRIPS Agreement contains minimum standards and a non-contravention test so that there is a ceiling in implementation that cannot be exceeded. He also analysed how the TRIPS Agreement is used as a framework for free trade agreements (FTAs) including chapters on IP.

Mr Pedro Roffe, Senior Associate at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, argued that the proliferation of FTAs has contributed to the expansion of TRIPS-plus obligations. He further added that the Council for TRIPS should play a role in analysing the validity of TRIPS-plus provisions implemented in FTAs.

Finally, Mr Andres Guggiana, Permanent Mission of Chile to the WTO, discussed the lack of balance in the IP legal systems of some developing countries and posed some questions to the other panellists.

Sesión 39: Doha and the Multilateral Trade System: From Impasse to Development?

This panel discussed the way in which development has been addressed at various stages over the course of the Doha Round. Critical assessments were made of the shortcomings of negotiation proposals and the future for the development dimensions of the trade talks.

Discussion began with the observation that many developing countries had entered into the Uruguay Round agreements without fully understanding the negotiation results, and the following years were taken up with implementation concerns. Members of the WTO have struggled since its inception with the tension between making its rules more development-friendly and pushing further into new areas or disciplines. For instance, whereas developing countries sought favourable adjustments to rules in textiles and agriculture, developed countries have often looked for expansion into areas of investment, the environment, labour, competition and procurement. The panel identified a common situation of developing countries being asked to surrender "policy space" in non-agricultural market access while getting little in return in agricultural trade.

It was stated that there is no movement in any area of the negotiations apart from trade facilitation. Other initiatives had emerged outside the Doha framework through preferential trade agreements and plurilateral negotiations in services, causing concern that the results of such agreements would eventually be multilateralized and thus escape input from developing countries. On the topic of trade facilitation, many of the panellists asserted that these talks were premised upon the importance of global value chains in trade. This, in turn, drew strong misgivings from the panel that the narrative of global value chains overstated the gains of import liberalization to developing countries, and furthermore was directly inconsistent with developed countries' own protectionist measures against imports.

Panellists were therefore sceptical of calls for liberalization that did not account for social realities and evenness of opportunity in trade rules.  Proposals on import facilitation and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) rules on financial services were further criticized for being based on discredited assumptions on the relationship between deregulation and development.  It was thus broadly agreed that trade negotiations cannot focus exclusively on free trade, but must seek balance with human rights and sustainability.

Fuente: OMC