Global Issue Paper No. 22
A Dialogue Project in Two Parts
By Jayson Cainglet and Robert Stemmler, November 2005
» Download the Global Issue Paper No. 22 (42 p., 262 KB, pdf)
» Overview Global Issue Papers
Preface
By Dr. Heike Löschmann, Director Southeast Asia Regional Office
Wishing to contribute to the discussion of trade policy instruments on the occasion of the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December 2005, the Heinrich Boell Foundation is presenting this Global Issue Paper in a rather unconventional format. This paper combines two different perspectives on Special Products (SP) and Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSM), one from the North and one from the South.
Robert Stemmler, a graduate of political science from Sciences Po Paris, France, and Free University Berlin, Germany, and Jayson Cainglet, an activist involved with farmers’ groups in the Philippines and the broad agriculture and trade policy concerns of the global south, both discuss the question if and how protective trade policy instruments like SP and SSM can contribute to a more sustainable and fairer multilateral system of trade in agriculture.
The authors engaged into a fruitful dialogue and exchanged their partly contradicting views during the drafting process, yet their positions could not be reconciled into the same paper. The resulting two papers illustrate very well that trade policy instruments remain a highly contentious issue between representatives of the North and the South.
Both agree that Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanisms are necessary defensive trade policy instruments in the current state of world trade. An Agreement on Agriculture which does not guarantee the protection of vulnerable groups and which is not compatible with national sustainable development policy goals cannot be regarded as legitimate or just. Additionally, the authors pinpoint a flaw in the proposals: SP indicators reflecting gender-sensitive and environmental concerns are missing in spite of the fact that they are both pre-requisites for sustainable development.
The necessity of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) is not a question for both authors. However, their approaches to SDT differ. For Jayson Cainglet, it is a logical consequence of the disastrous effects of agricultural trade liberalization that developing countries should define their own appropriate scope of SP and SSM for their specific development needs. For Robert Stemmler, a discourse based on justifiable reasons as to the extent of exemptions from trade rules accorded to developing countries is necessary. For such a reliable justification to be realised, all parties have to agree on a reference system that takes into account SDT’s aims at justice in global trade and reflects a serious concern for the needs of the vulnerable sectors. This view implies that developing countries also have to justify why and to what extent they want to use protective trade policy instruments.
Thus, four controversial questions arose:
- The motivations and interests of the stakeholders: Are developing countries unified behind the Group of 33 (G33) proposal?
- Scope of SP and SSM: Should there be a maximum flexibility or should the extent be restricted?
- Is there a risk and/or is it a valid concern that SP and SSM impede South-South trade?
- Who profits from current safeguard measures: Are transition economies (some of whom are G33 members) also profiting from Special Safe Guards (SSG) maximum flexibility?
At the end of the drafting process, it became obvious that the positions of both authors had become enriched by each other. A combined publication of both papers not only gives an insight into the different perspectives but also provides valuable complementary information on our positioning. Jayson Cainglet’s paper focuses on the G33’s perspective regarding sustainability matters, explaining its potentials but also its deficiencies. It helps cast light on the situation of those affected and their legitimate claims for fairer trade policies. Robert Stemmler’s critical overview is more concerned with mapping the stakeholders’ positions and intends to contribute to a better understanding of why consensus is so difficult to reach. He opts for a more neutral way to facilitate dialogue on SP and SSM but at the same time recognises that Jayson Cainglet makes strong points which the agricultural trade liberalisation proponents have not sufficiently addressed. Both papers reinforce our stance that global alternatives to make the multilateral trade system more just are urgently needed.
Finally, it is intended that this Global Issue Paper will deliver a productive input for the constructive debates the Heinrich Boell Foundation envisions for Hong Kong and beyond.