No new trade round

EU-ACP Ministerial

Deliberations over IFF

Tropical forest budget

EU Forest Agenda

No new trade round

The Third WTO Ministerial held in Seattle, 30 November-3 December ended in confusion, with no agreement on a new trade round and no date set for further negotiations. The main reason for this failure was the inability of the EU and the US to agree on major issues such as further liberalisation of agriculture. Developing countries, exasperated by their losses during the Uruguay round, were not prepared to give in on issues such as labour rights. The negotiations were secretive, excluding many developing countries from participation. No agreement for further liberalisation of forest products was reached.

The biggest peaceful demonstration in the US since the Vietnam War brought together unlikely alliances, showing the strength of civil society’s concern that the WTO undermines elected governments by transferring power from the national to the corporate level. Demonstrators danced and chanted in the streets, dressed up as trees and turtles. One banner stated "save our forests, clear cut the WTO".

The negotiations were chaotic, badly organised and secretive, leading Mr. Lamy, Commissioner for Trade, to describe the process as ‘medieval’. The Secretary General reinstituted the process of negotiating deals in back rooms with only a few countries present, abolished by his predecessor. Many of the developing country representatives were therefore excluded from negotiations. Also EU member states complained of not having access to all information.

The Commission overstepped its negotiating mandate accorded by the Council. Mr. Lamy proposed the creation of a biotechnology working group as part of his negotiations with he US. Despite the fact that all 15 member states made their opposition to such a working group clear, the Commission kept it in the EU position. NGOs as well as member states feel that a biotechnology working group under the WTO would undermine the Biosafety protocol currently under negotiation in the Biodiversity Convention.

The trade ministers did not sign the accelerated tariff liberalisation proposal (ATL) which would have eliminated tariffs on forest products. Mr. Lamy promised MEPs that if the EU signed the ATL proposal, forest products and fisheries would be excluded.

The current situation gives forest NGOs the opportunity to ensure that governments heed their advice to carry out impact assessments of trade liberalisation on the environment and social welfare. This is essential as a leaked draft declaration1  showed the EU’s clear intentions to liberalise tariffs and non tariff measures in all sectors, without stating the need for any sustainability impact assessments.

1 available from Fern

On 7-8 December, the third Ministerial Conference between African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the European Union to discuss the future of the Lomé Convention took place in Brussels. The talks broke off without a deal although both sides said that considerable progress had been made. A special Ministerial will have to be held before February when the current Lomé Convention expires.

The Lomé Convention is one of the EU's biggest foreign policy initiatives including non-reciprocal trade preferences for 71 ACP countries and development aid worth about 2.5 bn Euro, annually.

According to the ACP secretariat some disagreement remains on the financial package for the next five years. The EU member states are close to agreeing a 13.8 bn Euro offer, however, the ACP countries deem this offer to be unsatisfactory and are calling for a real term increase in aid.

Agreement was reached on an 8 year rolle-over of existing trade preferences. During this period, the ACP countries will have to negotiate WTO-compatible free trade areas with the EU. The negotiations will start in 2002 and come into force no later than 2008. The NGO Liaison Committee stated that free trade areas are not satisfactory and alternatives must be considered. Before any new agreements are negotiated an impact assessment must be carried out jointly by EU, ACP and civil society and include the repercussions on poverty, environment and food security.

A meeting of NGOs and representatives of Indigenous Peoples Organisations (IPOs) from all over the world took place in Ottawa on the 4th and 5th December, to discuss 'institutions, arrangements and mechanisms for global action on forests'. The strengths and weaknesses of current arrangements, and possible ways forward in the run up to IFF4 and CSD8 (in February and April respectively) were the main topics discussed

These are much debated topics in the closing weeks of the four year IFF process (Forest Watch 34), which many feel has spent much time focusing on the pros and cons of a forest convention. This has distracted attention from the urgent need for implementation of existing commitments, in particular the IPF proposals for action, which were agreed upon at the final session of the IPF in 1997.

NGOs in Ottawa agreed that future action on forests should focus on compliance with existing commitments relating to forests and forest peoples. Any mechanism developed must:

1) focus on implementation of existing international agreements by all countries;

2) be transparent, accountable and open to independent scrutiny;

3) ensure genuine and equitable participation of all stakeholders including Indigenous Peoples;

4) have a balanced representation of different government departments relating to forests.

The CRCI held its final meeting in Ottawa on 6-10 December (Forest Watch 37). This initiative's aim was to discuss international arrangements and mechanisms for forests to present at IFF IV. Eighty countries participated along with some NGO and IPO representatives.

NGOs have expressed concerns about the initiative as they feel it was set up to create consensus for a forest convention, rather than to objectively explore all possible options. Governments in many of the preceding regional meetings echoed these concerns. In Ottawa, delegates again complained that they felt constrained by the organisers. It was only after Canada and Costa Rica stated they were not looking for consensus on a convention, that the meeting became more open. Opponents -which include the US, Brazil and Australia- and proponents -such as Canada and Malaysia- are still far apart on the convention issue. The meeting was thus inconclusive. However, it did provide an incentive for Governments to discuss this issue. The EU’s position in favour of a forest convention, is severely weakened by increasing differences between member states.

On 7 December, the European Parliament discussed the Commission’s budget for next year. The Parliament rejected the Council’s proposal to reduce the Tropical Forest Budget Line to 9 million Euro in 2000. Instead it set the budget to just under 30 million which was agreed in plenary by the Parliament. This represents a substantial reduction in the amount spent on tropical forest projects, as the yearly budget was 45-50 million Euro, over the last few years

The current Tropical Forest Budget Line Regulation expires on 31 December 1999 and the new Regulation still needs to be adopted by the Council and Parliament. The Council’s legal translators reviewed the Regulation’s translations in the 11 official languages to ensure there are no discrepancies and it was adopted by the Council on 16 December. It is expected that the Regulation will go to Parliament in January 2000 for its second reading. It appears unlikely that the Regulation will be adopted before March 2000, assuming both Parliament and Council agree. During this period, the Commission will not be able to enter into any new contracts. Concerns also remain as to the budgetary allocation under the new Regulation as the Council is proposing a ceiling of 9 million Euro.

EU Forest Agenda

• 1 January: Portuguese Presidency

• 14 January: DG Agriculture Advisory Committee on Forests and Cork, Brussels

• 31 January - 11 February: Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, New York