Free Trade Area of the Americas - FTAA |
![]() |
Declarations |
Committee |
Committees |
Facilitation |
Society |
Database |
Cooperation Program |
||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Summary Report |
Public
FTAA - COMMITTEE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
ON THE PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY
SYNOPSIS OF EVENT The First Issue Meeting of the FTAA
Committee of Government Representatives on the Participation of Civil Society
was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 25 June 2003, and focused on agriculture
negotiations. The event was held at the headquarters of
the Fundación Memorial de América Latina (Latin American Memorial Foundation). The forum was formally opened with
introductory remarks by Ambassador Luiz Felipe de Moredo Soares, Secretary
General for South America of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, and by
Luis Fernando Peredo Rojas, Chair of the FTAA Committee of Government
Representatives on the Participation of Civil Society. Both speakers emphasized
the need for civil society participation in the creation process of the FTAA and
the importance of the issue selected as the focus of the meeting. The Chair highlighted the efforts of the
Ministers and Vice Ministers of the Hemisphere to increase two-way communication
with civil society regarding the negotiations, enhance and sustain participation
of the different sectors of civil society in the hemispheric initiative, and
strengthen and deepen their consultation processes with civil society at the
national level. Recent Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) Guidance to the SOC
(contained in TNC/22 and TNC/23, available to the public online at
www.ftaa-alca.org identified various
mechanisms in order to achieve this goal, including the organization of FTAA
issue meetings with Hemispheric civil society in rotating host countries. The
Chair explained how this event fulfills this instruction. In addition, the Chair
emphasized the Committee’s role as a conduit through which to work with civil
society and clarified that the SOC is not an FTAA negotiating entity. Ms. María Izabel Víeira, National
Coordinator for Agriculture, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil,
commented on the mandates of the Negotiating Group on Agriculture and the
current status of the negotiations. She explained that the NGAG has based its
work on the San José, Buenos Aires, and Quito ministerial mandates, as well as
on the specific mandates of the TNC, and that the Group has produced a draft
Chapter based on proposals submitted by the various delegations. Ms. Víeira
further explained that the Group has reached some agreements, citing the
elimination of export subsidies, although differences continue to prevail on
other issues, such as support measures that affect trade. In this regard, some
delegations feel that the issue should be treated multilaterally, in the WTO,
while others insist that it should be addressed within the FTAA. The NGAG
negotiates non-tariff measures, as well as sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
One of the most significant agreements produced by the Group was to design an
instrument whereby countries may notify non-tariff measures existing in the FTAA
partners that are adversely affecting them. Finally, the NGAG has worked on
market access negotiations. Delegations are currently working on improvements to
market access offers. Civil society participants spoke on a
variety of topics, also mirrored in the written statements (see annex), which
are summarized as follows: 1. - General remarks on the FTAA and its
potential impact on the participating countries. 2. - Remarks on the FTAA process and the
participation of civil society therein, including issue meetings such as the Sao
Paulo meeting. 3. - Remarks on the issue of agriculture
and negotiations within the FTAA process. Remarks on the FTAA in general and its
impact on the participating countries Clearly, there is a range of views on the
impact of the FTAA: first, a position supporting the creation of the FTAA, given
the positive and wide-ranging impact it will have on the economies of the
countries, job creation, and poverty reduction. Agricultural producer groups and
industry groups attending the meeting indicated that they firmly supported this
position. Trade in agricultural products among the nations of the Western
Hemisphere could be expanded substantially, if the many and varied forms of
impediments to that trade were eliminated. Several delegations to the SOC also
expressed their support for this position, explaining the importance of the
negotiations in formulating clear trading rules for small countries. - With regard to criticisms of the FTAA
there were two distinct viewpoints expressed by some labor and academic
groups, as well as NGOs: a viewpoint rejecting the FTAA altogether, and
another stating that the FTAA in its current form needed to be dramatically
improved. - Some oppose trade liberalization
agreements and the globalization process, because they generally view the
latter, and by extension the FTAA, as a process that limits national
sovereignty, confirms the status of rich and powerful countries, and
perpetuates current poverty levels in developing countries. Some speakers
clearly opposed the negotiation of this type of agreement, regardless of its
outcome. - Other participants emphasized that the
FTAA needed to be modified to address the following significant issues:
differences in the levels of development and size of the economies, in
infrastructure and human capital, and the existing asymmetries regarding
access to capital and technology for development. Some representatives
indicated that their support for the FTAA will depend on the integration model
arising out of the negotiations and that they will only support a model geared
towards overcoming asymmetries, including on agriculture, which negotiations
are seeking to address. - Other representatives noted that trade
plays a significant role in development and poverty reduction, if properly
managed, through the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and the
modification of rules. - Finally, representatives from some
indigenous communities expressed their opposition to the process, stating that
it threatened the core spiritual and cultural values of their communities.
The FTAA Process and the Participation of
Civil Society Many organizations referred to the
perceived lack of transparency in the process of creating the FTAA. In this
respect, some organizations emphasized the difficulties in accessing the
information available, both at a general level regarding the process and the
impacts thereof on the population, and at a more specific level, on the
negotiations themselves. They are dissatisfied with the type of documents that
have been made public, which they assert do not provide any relevant
information. It is not enough to have access to the draft Chapters, although the
Ministers’ decision to release the first and second draft texts of the agreement
was acknowledged. Many of those who took the floor indicated the limitations of
the Internet as a means of communication with civil society, describing it as a
non-democratic medium for many countries, particularly so in light of the fact
that a very small percentage of the population of the Hemisphere enjoys access
to the Internet. One representative insisted on the need for the Committee to
disseminate documents more effectively. A number of participants requested that
civil society be informed as to who made the proposals that are reflected in the
draft Chapters. More specifically, with regard to civil
society participation in the FTAA process, some participants felt that the
current mechanisms in place at the national and regional level needed to be
strengthened and improved. In general, they indicated their desire to actively
and substantively participate in the process, rather than simply being
consulted. They argued that consultations and other similar mechanisms, such as
the contributions in response to the open invitation, are insufficient and do
not guarantee that the positions expressed will be taken into account during the
negotiations. Representatives of Argentine civil society
reported that a forum will be held in Buenos Aires from 5 to 7 November 2003 in
order to create an FTAA Permanent Committee on Civil Society. They propose that
the forum be used as a channel through which to notify civil society on all
pertinent events. The representatives requested the support of the Committee.
The participants also questioned the
format of the issue meetings, indicating that the meetings could not be
considered as consultations, but as forums for the exchange of ideas. It is
worth mentioning that the Brazilian members of parliament and the local
government representatives in attendance said that they were pleased with the
format of the meeting, explaining that it enabled them to improve their
understanding of the process, participate in the discussions, and prepare to
cope with their future impact. Agriculture In regard to agriculture, both detractors
and supporters of the FTAA argued for the elimination of agricultural export
subsidies, and many supported eliminating trade-distorting domestic support
measures. The participants mentioned that these types of measures have a
protectionist effect, constitute unfair competition, and adversely affect the
economies of the poorest countries. Differences still exist, however, on the
arena in which these issues should be negotiated. Some organizations emphasized
the benefit of negotiating rules on domestic supports in the WTO due to
continued use of such supports by non-FTAA countries. Others insisted that
working within the FTAA would help to reach more substantial agreements than
those reached in the WTO to date. Regardless of the outcome of these
discussions, several emphasized the need to define dispute settlement mechanisms
to settle disputes on the issue of subsidies in the Hemisphere. Among FTAA supporters, there is general
consensus on the benefits of trade on development and job creation in the
agricultural sector. For this reason they support the comprehensive
liberalization of the sector, with full market access and the elimination of
non-tariff barriers. They defend broad-based negotiations with a universal scope
and few exceptions. In terms of tariffs and sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
they support an FTAA that is more aggressive than the WTO, but that also ensures
that the transition to free trade is adequate. In regard to the process of exchanging
market access offers, participants expressed their views on two issues: - The need to define the tariff
elimination period for the D basket, which currently provides for tariff
elimination over a period of greater than 10 years. Some participants proposed
that the period for tariff elimination for the products in basket D be 12
years. - Some also noted the need to reduce
scaled tariffs in some countries. Furthermore, the participants expressed
their concern regarding the process for consultations with U.S. Congress on
sensitive agricultural products as derived from the Trade Promotion Authority
Act. Many participants indicated that the
Chapter on Agriculture does not sufficiently consider special and differential
treatment for developing countries. Some expressed concern that the Chapter does
not provide for any particular treatment for the family farm, nor does it limit
the power of agricultural transnationals or prohibit the dumping practices that
occur through the granting of subsidies. The Brazilian delegation emphasized the
comprehensive nature of the negotiations and noted that if sensitive
agricultural issues are not negotiated in the FTAA, nor should issues such as
services, intellectual property, or investment be negotiated. Some who oppose the FTAA made the
following statements on the subject of agriculture: - The FTAA is an attack on food
sovereignty, which is viewed as essential for the poorest sectors of the
population. Free trade agreements do not contain mechanisms to guarantee that
countries preserve their food sovereignty. - The FTAA will destroy the family farm
and adversely affect rural workers. - Competition as promoted by the free
market will only cause a trade war between the poor countries, which will be
forced to cut the salaries of rural workers even more in order to compete in a
market that is already flooded with surpluses. - The FTAA means that smaller countries
will give up control of their domestic markets to the large producers. - Free trade agreements in agriculture
do not guarantee equitable access to the markets of developed countries. - The FTAA makes no provisions for
protecting traditional knowledge or for defending cultural and ethnic values
or biodiversity. Prior to the close of the issue meeting,
it was announced that a second issue meeting focusing on the issue of services
would be held on 23 September in Santiago, Chile. Finally, the Committee Chair closed the event, thanking
the civil society organizations for participating. The Chair described the
feeling of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in the hemisphere
with regard to development, and stated that the FTAA should help to better that
situation and spread the benefits of expanded trade. The Chair emphasized that
the Committee would channel the contributions received throughout the event,
while recognizing the need to strengthen the mechanisms established to date to
promote increased and improved participation. |
|
|
|
|