There has been an explosion in the number of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) and Bilateral Trade Agreements (BTAs) being signed by almost all countries. In this context, do you think civil society trade policy debates are largely WTO-centric and have ignored RTAs? What are the broad implications of the proliferation of RTAs on development?
There is, of course, a considerable overlap between WTO multilateral rules and the provision in RTAs, since RTAs are supposed to be WTO-compatible. As a result, developing countries involved in, and civil society organisations interested in RTA negotiations need to follow both the WTO and RTA negotiations.
The real concern for developing countries and civil society is when rich countries push for agreements on trade in goods and trade-related areas that go further than what has been negotiated and agreed on at the multilateral level.
Throughout the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, many civil society organisations were following RTA negotiations like the US-CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) negotiations and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), but like many developing countries, civil society organisations have finite resources and they have to prioritise. The WTO has, so far, been the main focus of civil society organisations interested in trade. Now, civil society organisations are increasingly focusing on debates around RTAs, as many RTAs are beginning to reach critical stages in the negotiating process.
There is a view that in areas such as TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) and investments, RTAs and BTAs are actually succeeding in pushing through the backdoor what the WTO has not been able to achieve so far. What is your take on this?
Many RTAs dealing with intellectual property rights have more far-reaching provisions than those found in the WTO and TRIPS Agreement, as, for instance, the manner in which they address transition periods (shorter than those under the TRIPS Agreement) and enforcement. RTAs that mandate compliance with international accords (such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty) indirectly embody features of those agreements, such as procedural requirements that are not contained within the TRIPS Agreement. RTAs also engage countries that are not yet WTO members. This might occur in respect of regional laws or policies dealing with labour mobility and intellectual property rights.
What are the key advocacy challenges for Oxfam GB in the coming days and months, in ensuring that RTAs and BTAs are as much under public scrutiny as the WTO, to ensure that trade does indeed serve development and does not become an end in itself?
RTAs and BTAs present many challenges for Oxfam GB. First, unlike the WTO, there isn’t just one negotiating process on which to focus, but many. This requires an understanding of numerous processes, specifically the key political and economic concerns and objectives of the negotiating parties as well as the status of the negotiations.
In campaigning terms, RTAs and BTAs present the challenge that there is no single event to focus campaign activities on as there is in the case of the WTO, with the ministerial meetings. However, they do present opportunities for developing creative and innovative approaches to national and global campaigning.
|
