inside this issue - organization of american states

The WTO Trade Policy Review of Guyana ...... 1Guyana’s Stand on the Current WTONegotiations ........................................................ 2ACP/EU: Negotiations On EconomicPartnership with the European Union .............. 4CARICOM: Update on the implementation ofCARICOM Single Market & Economy .............. 6Developments in the FTAA ................................ 7Genetically Modified Organisms:Challenges & Risks ............................................. 9

Bilateral CooperationBrazil:

International Road Transport Agreement 10Takatu Bridge Project ................................ 10

Malaysia:Arrival of Rambutan Expert ...................... 11

Cuba:22nd Session of the Guyana/CubaJoint Commission ...................................... 11

India:4th Session of the Guyana/India JointCommission ................................................ 11

China:The Bilateral Investment Treaty ............... 12Moco Moco Hydropower Stations ............ 12Guyana International Conference Center 12Bamboo Craft Project ................................ 12

Japan:New Amsterdam Hospital Project ............ 12Technical Training ..................................... 13

Cooperation with International Organisations:Commonwealth Secretariat ...................... 13Organisation of American States ............. 13

Seminars/workshops/Conferences:A National Trade Strategy for Guyana ..... 14Making Global Trade Work for People .... 1615th COTED .................................................. 21The Bamboo Craft Project ......................... 24

THE WTOTRADE POLICY REVIEW OF GUYANA

Mr. Neville Totoram, NACEN Coordinator

Background

The World Trade Organization (WTO), in keeping withits mandate to conduct Trade Policy reviews of its mem-bers, has commenced a Review of Guyana’s trade policy.This undertaking resulted from a request made in June2001 by the Honourable Minister of Foreign Trade andInternational Cooperation, on the occasion of a visit bythe then WTO Director General, Mr. Mike Moore, to theregion. During that visit Guyana informed the DirectorGeneral of the country’s desire to undertake a TradePolicy Review (TPR). The WTO Trade Policy review ofGuyana commenced in September 2002 and is sched-uled for completion in October 2003.

Trade Policy Reviews are an integral part of the multi-lateral trade arrangement in the WTO. Such reviews al-low for the documenting of the trade regime of WTOMembers which, in the case of developing countries, isuseful in highlighting the difficulties faced in implement-ing the various WTO Agreements and the need for tech-nical assistance to meet such obligations. For CARICOM,Trade Policy Reviews have been done for the followingMember States namely: Jamaica (1998), Trinidad andTobago (1998), OECS (2001) and Barbados (2002).Belize and Suriname are yet to undertake a Trade PolicyReview.

Programme of activities

The activities comprising the TPR process can becategorised in three (3) broad stages. For Guyana’s Re-view these stages and timelines are as follows:

• Stage I - Submission of initial data for thecompilation of the initial draft chapters of the

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

cont’d on page 3

MOFTIC Digest — Issue No. 2, 2003 2

In the context of the Doha DevelopmentAgenda, Guyana considered the issuesof implementation, special anddifferential treatment for developmentcountries, and affordable access tomedicine to be of particular relevance.In Doha, Guyana noted that to achievea positive and balanced agenda,particular attention should be given tothe special needs and interests ofdeveloping and least-developed Membercountries in all trade negotiations andliberalization processes. With respect tospecial and differential treatment,Guyana’s stated position in Doha wasthat every effort should be made toimplement fully the existing WTOprovisions on special and differentialtreatment for small, vulnerabledeveloping economies, especially in theareas of anti-dumping, sanitary andphytosanitary measures, and technicalbarriers to trade. Guyana also urged thatthe TRIPS Agreement be implemented toallow countries to address the gravepublic health crisis faced by numerousdeveloping, and particularly least-developed countries, in order to ensureaccess to affordable medicines.

Guyana’s position in the currentnegotiations on agriculture is that thetrade and non-trade concerns of least-developed and other vulnerablecountries need to be addressed, as wellas any negative impact of the

GUYANA’S STAND ON THE CURRENTWORLD TRADE ORGANISATION NEGOTIATIONS

A Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Trade& International Cooperation,

Takuba Lodge, 254 South Road,Georgetown, Guyana.

Tel (592) 226-5064/226-8427;Fax (592) 226-8426

Email: [email protected]: www.moftic.gov.gy

Producer/Editor: Muthoni MugoTrade Promotion SpecialistUnited Nations Volunteers

Photos: Courtesy of Mohammed SheriffIT SpecialistUnited Nations Volunteers

Typesetting: Haseeb KhanA1 Advertising & Print Services

negotiations upon these countries. Guyanaconsiders that tariff reductions inagriculture should be made using theUruguay Round formula and starting withfinal bound rates, with limited rates ofreduction for sensitive products essentialfor food security in vulnerable countries.Guyana also considers that preferencesshould be maintained for products ofsubstantial export interest to, andoriginating in, vulnerable countries.Similarly, Guyana proposes that in case ofexpansion of tariff quotas for products ofsubstantial export interest to, andoriginating in, vulnerable countries, theexpansion should be in favour of thesecountries. Jointly with other CARICOMmembers, Guyana made submissions to theCommittee on Agriculture with respect tothe Green Box and food aid.


Secretariat’s Report (September2002 – February 2003);

[This first Stage culminated with afirst visit of a two-man Team fromthe WTO Trade Policies Review Di-vision (TPRD) at the end of January2003. The WTO Team was led by theDirector of the TPRD and the objec-tive of the visit was to conduct a sen-sitization Seminar for the key gov-ernment agencies and officials asso-ciated with the review process andto collect relevant trade and eco-nomic data and information].

• Stage II - Review of the initialdraft chapters of theSecretariat’s Report (March –July 2003);

• Stage III – Finalisation of theSecretariat’s Report (August –September 2003);

• Stage IV - Presentation of thefinal TPR report on Guyana tothe TPRD (October 29 - 312003).

The review process is currently at thesecond stage following a second visitof a WTO Team during the periodJune 17 - 20, 2003. The objective ofthis second visit was to meet withsenior government officials and ex-perts and discuss the initial draftchapters of the Secretariat’s Reporton the Trade Policy Review andclarify the contents of the Report asfar as possible.

Coordination and Consultations

To facilitate the Review, the Minis-try of Foreign Trade and InternationalCooperation (MOFTIC), with re-sponsibility for WTO matters and

focal point for this exercise, has inplace mechanisms to expedite theprocess. A small internal TechnicalCommittee was established withinMOFTIC under the Chairmanship ofthe NACEN Coordinator. The Com-mittee was tasked with coordinatingall matters pertaining to the reviewprocess locally, including correspon-dence with the TPRD. In addition tothe work of the Committee, the Min-istry held a number of Inter - Agencyconsultations under the Chairman-ship of the Honourable Minister ofForeign Trade and International Co-operation.

Structure and Content

The Trade Policy Review of any WTOmember consists of the followingelements;

(i) Report of the WTO Secretariat;

(ii) Report of the WTO Member(the GOG’s Report in our case);

(iii) Oral Statement by the WTOmember (Government ofGuyana) at the Review Sessionin Geneva;

(iv) Minutes of the Review Sessionwith the TPRD to conclude theprocess.

The Secretariat’s Report consistsof the following structure:

(i) Chapter I – Economic Environ-ment (deals with the country’soverall economic structure);

(ii) Chapter II – Trade Policy Re-gime: Framework and Objec-tives (deals with the country’strade policy making regime);

(iii) Chapter III – Prade Policies and

practices by Measures (dealswith the country’s trade regime:Specific measures affecting im-ports and exports);

(iv)Chapter IV – Trade Policies bySector (deals with the country’spolicies in specific sectors; and

(v) Annexes of tables, charts etc.

Present Status

Following the June visit, the reviseddraft chapters were sent to the Min-istry of Foreign Trade and Interna-tional Cooperation for review andany further amendments which wereto be forwarded to the WTO Secre-tariat by the 31st July 2003.

In light of this, discussions were ac-tivated with the Cabinet Sub – Com-mittee on Trade. Two meetings ofthe cabinet Sub – Committee wereheld on the 16th and 29th of July 2003respectively for the specific purposeof discussing the revised Chaptersand responses from governmentagencies and departments.

Arising out of these meetings theCabinet Sub – Committee on Tradeagreed to a list of amendments tothe Report which was conveyed tothe WTO Secretariat in keeping withthe deadline, July 31st 2003.

To complete the third phase, minis-try officials are working to preparethe governments’ report in responseto the Secretariat’s final report andthe government’s presentation to bemade to the Trade Policies reviewBoard in October 2003. The WTOTrade Policy review of Guyana isscheduled to be completed in Octo-ber 2003.

From page 1


NEGOTIATIONS OF ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTWITH THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU)

Ms. R. Jagarnauth

This is the second in a series of articles intended to sensitise the public, private sector andnon-state actors about the Cotonou Agreement.

What is the Contonou Agreement?

Since the launch of the negotiationson Economic Partnership Arrange-ments under the Cotonou Agree-ment, ACP Council of Ministers andCommittee of Ambassadors are en-gaged in the negotiations with theirrespective counterparts in the Euro-pean Community on the scope, struc-ture and content of the negotiations.The negotiations on EPAs are closelymonitored by the various regionalorgans/ institutions of the ACP.These include the ACP Regional In-tegration Organisations, the ACP Par-liamentary Assembly and the ACP’sRegional and National AuthorisingOfficers.

Concerns are expressed by the dif-ferent bodies on the slow pace of thenegotiations in achieving the objec-tives set out in Phase 1 of the Nego-tiations. A number of divergences inthe principles of the negotiationsappeared to bring Phase 1 of thenegotiations at a standstill. The ACPis desirous to reach a formal agree-ment between the two parties on theprinciples and objectives and the is-sues of common interests and con-cerns at the end of Phase 1 of thenegotiations. The EU on the otherhand is of the view that the negotia-tions are really in Phase 11 and that

Phase 1 is for the mere clarificationof issues. The EU side has confirmedits readiness to commence the sec-ond phase of the negotiations inSeptember 2003 despite the diver-gences. Discussions are ongoing atthe Ambassadorial level to advancethe process.

Heads of regional integrationorganisations in the ACP region onMay 9, 2003 strongly expressed theview that the EU side should seri-ously engage in Phase 1 of the nego-tiations and reinforced that develop-ment dimensions should be placedat the centre of the negotiations ofEPAs to enable the eradication ofpoverty and the smooth and gradualintegration of the ACP in the worldeconomy.

Regional and National AuthorisingOfficers of the ACP at their meetingin May 10-12,2003 emphasisedamong others, obtaining guaranteesthat the EPAs would not divert re-sources set aside for developmentpurposes . Council of Ministers attheir 77th meeting endorsed the rec-ommendation that measures be putin place to correct the slow pace ofdisbursement of EDF resources andto promote a better participation of

the ACP to the decision making pro-cess in relation to the utilisation ofEDF resources.

At the 15th COTED Meeting ofCARICOM Ministers from the 29-30May, 2003 in Georgetown, the ne-gotiating arm of the region, the Car-ibbean Regional Negotiating Ma-chinery (CRNM) presented a reporton the current status of the negotia-tions and reviewed the state of pre-paredness for Phase 11 scheduled tocommence in September 2003. TheCRNM has circulated the draft Car-ibbean Guidelines for Phase 11 ofthe Negotiations. CARICOM Mem-bers are to consult at the nationallevel and submit their concerns andcomments to the CRNM. This pro-cess is ongoing.

At the recently held Twenty FourthMeeting of the Conference of Headsof Government of the CaribbeanCommunity, the Dominican Repub-lic and Haiti signalled their intentionto negotiate an EPA as part of theCARIFORUM Group. This will pavethe way for the negotiation of a Re-gional Economic Partnership Agree-ment (REPA) with the EU and au-gurs well for advancing preparationsfor Phase 11 of the negotiations.

The Democratic Republic of TimorLeste is the latest signatory to theGeorgetown Agreement and is nowthe 79th Member of the African, Car-

“NEW KID ON THE BLOC”

ibbean and Pacific (ACP) Group ofcountries.

ACP Council of Ministers at their 77th

Session in May 2003 accepted theaccession of Timor Leste with all theattendant rights and obligations ofthe ACP.


On March 14, 2003 Thailand re-quested consultation at the WTOchallenging the EU Sugar regime.Thailand’s concerns are the same asthose raised by Australia and Brazil.Unlike Australia /Brazil request thatallowed for third party representa-tion, Thailand’s request did not al-low for third party involvement inthe consultation. The consultationwas held on April 8, 2003.

THAILAND JOINS THE CHALLENGEReports from the consultation indi-cate that no substantial questionswere posed by Thailand nor any writ-ten questions were submitted. Theview was expressed that Thailandmay be merely satisfying the proce-dural requirements that will enablethat country to join Australia andBrazil in the challenge. A July 10,2003 release from Brussels, ex-pressed the EU’s deep regret of the

decision by Australia, Brazil andThailand to request a WTO panelagainst the EU Common MarketOrganisation for Sugar. It refers toEU’s Agriculture Commissioner MrFranz Fischler statement “This Chal-lenge is hard to understand. It is noth-ing less than an attack on the Eu’strade preferences for developing coun-tries. Let us be clear. The claims madeby Brazil, Australia and Thailand risk

On June 6, 1975, 46 African, Carib-bean and Pacific states signed anagreement in Georgetown, Guyanaestablishing the ACP Group of coun-tries. This agreement referred to asthe Georgetown Agreement, affirmedthe Group’s common identity soli-darity and unity.

In recognition of the need for theACP Group to go through the pro-cess of modernisation and reform toenable it to respond effectively to

new developments and challenges asa result of globalisation, ACP’s Am-bassadors and Legal Experts are cur-rently engaged in a review of the1975 Agreement

The Cotonou Agreement enteredinto force on April 1, 2003 after rati-fication by the 15 Member States ofthe European Community. In May2002 the ACP side met the requiredtwo-thirds requirements that allowedfor ratification on the ACP side.

The Cotonou Agreement was signedonto by 77 ACP Members and 15 theMember States of the European Com-munity on June 23, 2000 inCotonou, Benin. The entry in forcewill pave the way for the drawndown of the 13 billion euros ear-marked by the European Develop-ment Fund for development of theACP states during the first five yearsof the implementation of theCotonou Agreement.

The ACP continues to make repre-sentation at the political levels to theEuropean Commission, Australia andBrazil in light of the challenge to theEu’s Sugar regime from whichGuyana and other sugar producingand supplying countries of the ACPare benefiting. Including in the rep-resentations at the various levels arethose made by the Honourable Clem-ent Rohee, Minister of Foreign Tradeand International Cooperation ofGuyana, the Honourable Prime Min-ister of Jamaica, the Prime Ministerof Mauritius and the Minister of For-eign Affairs of Fiji.

The ACP Enlarged Sugar Bureau com-prising of Ministers responsible forSugar from Guyana, Mauritius, Fiji,and Swaziland undertook a Missionto Brazil in February 2003. Duringthat Mission Brazil signalled its in-tention to request a Dispute Settle-ment Panel at the WTO.

Since the Mission, The Chairman ofthe Conference of Heads of the Car-ibbean Community the HonourablePierre Charles , Prime Minister ofDominica has written to his coun-terparts of Australia and Brazil inMarch 2003 reiterating the concerns

AUSTRALIA / BRAZIL CHALLENGE TO THE EU SUGAR REGIMEAT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION

of the small and vulnerableCARICOM and ACP countries. TheACP Enlarged Sugar Bureau also metwith the EC Agriculture Commission-ers to brief them of the Lobby Mis-sion to Brazil and EC Trade Commis-sioner Pascal Lamy when he visitedthe Caribbean in February 2003.Commissioner Lamy expressed sat-isfaction with the efforts of the ACPto advance its case. He howeverpointed out that the EC was notquite clear as to what the challengeis all about since neither Australianor Brazil has provided exact reasonsfor the challenges.

SUGAR


Treaty Revision

The National Assembly has recentlyratified the Revised Treaty ofChaguaramas establishing the Car-ibbean Community including theCARICOM Singe Market & Economy.

This paves the way for the enactmentof the Revised Treaty into Guyana’snational legislation giving it legalityand ensuring that the rights and ben-efits provided for under the RevisedTreaty are now enshrined intoGuyana’s laws.

Manual of AdministrativeProcedures for the Implemen-tation of the CSME

The CARICOM Secretariat, in an ef-fort to strengthen national publicservice capacity to serve the require-ments of the CSME; as well as tointroduce and operate essential sys-tems and procedures at the nationaland regional levels for the efficientand effective operation of the CSME,had contracted the services of a teamof consultants under the CaribbeanInstitute of Administrative Develop-ment (CARICAD). The CARICADteam developed a Manual on Admin-istrative Procedures for the imple-mentation of the CSME. It is ex-pected that the Manual will be aworking guide for public service of-ficials who are engaged in discharg-ing duties to give effect to the CSME.

The Manual sets out the administra-tive procedures required for actual-ization of the CSME and was de-

UPDATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARICOMSINGLE MARKET & ECONOMY (CSME)

Ms. Bevon McDonald

signed to complement and give ef-fect to legislative measures (alreadyin place or proposed), assisting offi-cials to efficiently and effectively fa-cilitate the movement of skilled per-sons, capital, goods and services byaccording national treatment to na-tionals of all Member States that aresignatories to the Revised Treaty ofChaguaramas.

The Manual is divided into four (4)main sections. These sections treatwith:

• Introduction to the manual aswell as background informationsuch as the rationale for theCSME and details of theinstitutional arrangementsrequired.

• Provisions and proceduresnecessary to give effect to thefree movement of persons andthe right to establish businessenterprises within CARICOM.

• Details on trade in services andgoods as well as competitionrules (such as the guideline forproducing and marketingunrefined cane sugar), and thetreatment of subsidies and anti-dumping.

• Safeguards and other approvedrestrictions as provided for ineh Revised Treaty ofChaguaramas, and thesettlement of disputes. The roleof the Caribbean Court ofJustice (CCJ) is also addressed

in this section of the Manual.

Key proposals contained within theManual include the following:

• The establishment of NationalCSME Units (or appointment ofFocal Points) to treatspecifically with matterspertaining to theimplementation and operationof the CSME as well as to holdnational consultations with allrelevant stakeholders.

• The establishment of an Inter-Ministry ConsultativeCommittee (IMCC) to provideassistance and support to theCSME Unit. The IMCC shouldinclude all the relevantMinistries and Governmentalagencies.

• The establishment of a Businessand Labour AdvisoryCommittee (BLAC) withlinkages to civil society,comprising of representatives ofcommercial and businessinterests, and trade unions.

This Manual was recently adoptedby Cabinet for national implemen-tation. Bearing in mind the key pro-posals contained therein, the Minis-try of Foreign Trade and InternationalCooperation has since convened ameeting of the Inter-Ministerial Con-sultative Committee (IMCC). Con-sultations are currently ongoing withthe private sector, labour and non-governmental partners for the estab-

undermining the benefits of the EUregime for many sugar dependent de-veloping countries. And to add insult

to injury, they are challenging thecommitments which were agreed uponby all WTO members during the Uru-

guay Round and which are fully re-spected by the EU”.


lishment of the Business and LabourAdvisory Committee (BLAC).

Copies of the Manual of Administra-tive Procedures for the Implementa-tion of the CSME could be down-loaded from the Ministry’s website:www.moftic.gov.gy

Free Movement of Persons

In keeping with mandate of the Con-ference of Heads of Government,Guyana has recently amended itslegislation to allow CARICOM uni-versity graduates, sports persons,media workers, artistes and musi-cians to work within Guyana with-out the requirement of a work per-mit requirement.

Guyana has also amended its legis-

lation (Immigration Act) to includeSurinamese nationals. That is,Surinamese are now being accordedthe same treatment granted to otherCARICOM nationals.

It should be noted that these catego-ries of Guyanese are also expectedto benefit from similar treatmentwithin those CARICOM countriesthat are participating with theCSME. That is, Antigua & Barbuda,Barbados, Belize, the Common-wealth of Dominica, Grenada, Ja-maica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia,St. Vincent & The Grenadines,Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago.

Facilitation of Travel

During their 14th Inter-SessionalMeeting, the CARICOM Conference

of Heads of Government had man-dated to take the necessary actionto allow CARICOM nationals totravel freely within CARICOM utiliz-ing passports, Photo-ID Cards orDrivers’ Licenses.

Guyana, in keeping with that man-date, has amended its legislations togive effect to this decision.

It is expected that Guyanese will beable to enjoy these benefits in trav-eling to other CARICOM MemberStates which are participating withinthe CSME shortly. That is, Antigua& Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, theCommonwealth of Dominica,Grenada, Jamaica, St. Kitts & Nevis,St. Lucia, St. Vincent & The Grena-dines, Suriname and Trinidad & To-bago.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FREE TRADE AREA OF THEAMERICAS (FTAA)

Introduction

On November 1, 2002 FTAA TradeMinisters met in Quito, Ecuador andcommenced the final phase of theFTAA Negotiations which is sched-uled to be concluded at the end ofDecember 2004.

The exchange of market access offersin the areas of goods, services, in-vestment and government procure-ment have been identified as criticalto the liberalization process to beintroduced under the FTAA. By theend of February 2003 all countrieshad commenced exchanging InitialMarket Access Offers for free trade ingoods. By the end of May 2003 allthe countries had also exchangedsome level of Initial Market Access Of-fers in the areas of services, invest-ment and government procurement.Some countries, and in particularCARICOM, defined their initial mar-

ket access offers in most of the areasin terms of a minimalist offer, mean-ing that the least liberal offer wasput on the table to initiate the ex-change process.

More than just a negotiating strat-egy, however, it has become clear thatthe “minimalist” approach in the pre-sentation of offers by most delega-tions is evident of the uncertaintieswith which many countries in thehemisphere are faced since the 3rd

Summit of the Americas (SOA) inApril 2001, as a result of the grow-ing economic problems at both thenational and global levels. A keydevelopment in this regard, with aworrying impact on the FTAA pro-cess, is the stalemate in the DohaDevelopment Round Negotiations inthe WTO.

The US, observing the difficultieswhich have arisen in the WTO nego-

tiations and to a lesser

extent in the FTAA, has pursued astrategy involving bilateral free tradenegotiations with key trading part-ners (in and outside the hemisphere)as a critical way of advancing its for-eign trade agenda and consolidatingits negotiating positions. This ap-proach could undermine the FTAAprocess such that the achievementof market access concessions in theimportant US market would bebased on the exchange of bilateralconcessions and not on any need for“balance” across a wider level ofhemispheric interests.

Key Concerns for CARICOM

CARICOM Heads of Government attheir 14th Intersessional Meeting inFebruary 2003 issued a number ofimportant mandates to the region’snegotiators in the FTAA.


(i) First, treatment of theCARICOM LDCs in the FTAAnegotiations. The Heads “Re-iterated the region’s positionthat the principle of non-reci-procity for CARICOM LDCsmust be preserved in the FTAAnegotiations.”

(ii) Second, Technical Support andFunding Arrangements. TheHeads “Accepted the state-ment by Guyana that the Hemi-spheric CooperationProgramme (HCP) and the Re-gional Integration Fund wereseparate concepts and shouldbe approached separately; and

(iii) Agreed that an AdjustmentFund should be negotiatedwithin the context of the HCP.”

In keeping with this mandate,CARICOM renewed its call at the13th TNC Meeting in April 2003 forthe identification of financial andnon-financial instruments to facili-tate the integration of smaller econo-mies into the hemispheric process.CARICOM also reiterated its earlierproposal for an integration fundor facility to finance the costs ofimplementation of FTAA commit-ments.

At the 15th Meeting of theCOTED, held in Georgetown on May29-30, 2003, Guyana tabled aspecific proposal aimed at ad-vancing the Regional Integra-tion Fund (RIF) in the FTAA.Bearing this in mind, COTED Minis-ters took the following decisions toadvance the above-stated mandatesof the Heads:

(i) Regional Integration Fund (RIF):The RIF proposal will have tobe pursued mainly at thepolitical and diplomatic levels.In this regard, CARICOM woulduse the opportunity of the

Ministerial Stocktaking meeting(to be) convened by the USTRon June 12-13, 2003 toarticulate the region’s priorityon the RIF issue. CARICOM’sstrategy will include the draftingof specific language on the RIFfor inclusion in the MiamiMinisterial Declaration (set forNovember 2003).

(ii) CARICOM’s approach to themeeting with the USTR willincorporate the followingpoints:

• The December 2004 deadlinefor the completion of theFTAA negotiations seems un-realistic, given the difficultiesin the WTO and the impacton specific areas in the FTAAnegotiations (eg. Agricul-ture).

• Adjusting the scope of theFTAA Agenda. The optionsto be considered inCARICOM’s view are to:

- Keep the coverage(Agenda) same andlengthen the timeframebeyond December 2004;or

- Reduce the coverage andmaintain the December2004 deadline; or

- Seek a combination of theabove options.

Political stocktaking

On June 12–13, 2003, the UnitedStates Trade Representative (USTR),in his capacity as Co-Chair of theFTAA process, convened a Ministe-rial (political) Stocktaking meetingin Maryland, USA to examine thecurrent state of play of the FTAA ne-gotiations and the achievable pros-

pects by the December 2004 dead-line. The discussions focused on thecore elements needed for economicsuccess and political support of theFTAA process. All countries presentreaffirmed their commitment to thehemispheric integration process, butaccepted the view expressed byCARICOM that this should be basedon practical considerations. It wasagreed that while no topics wouldbe dropped from the agenda prema-turely, the content of each topicwould be reviewed and allocated be-tween the FTAA and the WTO. Themeeting accepted CARICOM’sproposal that this task shouldbe a priority in the TNC’spreparations leading up to theMiami ministerial Meeting inNovember 2003.

CARICOM pointed out that specialand differential treatment for smallereconomies is a fundamental tenet ofthe FTAA and must be given mean-ingful expression through specificmeasures in the negotiating groups.CARICOM also reiterated the impor-tance of development financing andadjustment and proposed that theInter-American Development Bank(IDB) should be asked to undertakea study on how a Regional Integra-tion Fund could be made operationalin the context of the FTAA.

While CARICOM might favour thetrimming of the agenda and the ex-tension of the timeframe at the sametime, the political realities wouldweigh heavily on the conclusion ofan agreement, albeit in some abbre-viated form, by the December 2004deadline. Any proposal to extendthe deadline would be consideredlogical if the original agenda is main-tained. CARICOM’s expectationso far is that the FTAA arrange-ments will be a ‘known quan-tity” by the time substantivenegotiations are undertakenwith the EU.


GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS: CHALLENGES & RISKSMs. Mavis Marongwe, United Nations Volunteer, Legal Draftsman

Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are causing divergent dis-putes all over the World with regardsto environmental, food safety andeconomic issues. Some of the dis-putes recently in the news includethe decision by the United States ofAmerica to begin dispute settlementproceedings on GMOs against theEuropean Union at the World TradeOrganisation, the refusal by somedrought hit Southern African coun-tries to accept GMO corn as donatedaid from the USA, and the backingof by China from importing GMOfoods and permitting new foreigninvestment in the development ofengineered seeds.

What are GMOs and why are thereso many disputes and debates rag-ing around them? This Article seeksto answer these and other questionsand to pinpoint where Guyanastands in all of this.

What is a GMO?

A GMO is derived from the modifi-cation of the genetic characteristicsof an organism. The modification isdone by inserting a modified geneor a new gene from another varietyof species. The reasoning behind thecreation of such Organisms is tocome up with plants which have abetter resistance to disease and bet-ter growth. The word ‘Organic’ is of-ten used to refer to organisms whichhave not have their genes altered inthis way and thus as the oppositeof GMOs.

Why have GMOs been developed?

GMOs have contributed to the greenrevolution. Crops produced using

GMO technology are apparentlymore resistance to bugs, pests andother plant afflictions. This has re-sulted in greater harvests, particu-larly in the USA where huge corn,soy and wheat harvests have beenrecorded. This obviously translatesinto more food to put on platesworldwide. Some GMO plants arealso being developed to deliver vi-tal vaccines and nutrients. An ex-ample is the ‘golden rice’ which is astrain of genetically modified riceenriched with beta-carotene contain-ing vitamin A. The rice will appar-ently help solve the problems of vi-tamin A deficiency which includeamong other things, blindness.

Why is there so much resistance to GMOs?

With so much good supposed tocome out of GMOs, the questionarises as to why is there so muchresistance to them?

The known and unknown effects ofGMOs on the environment, on hu-man and plant health and on econo-mies is the prime cause of the resis-tance to them.

There have been documented casesof harm being caused to humanhealth. These cases have led to somemajor markets in the World beingcautious and in some cases such asthe European Union, the impositionof a strict regulatory regime whichmust be met before any GMOs canbe approved for marketing. The Eu-ropean Union decision was influ-enced largely by such r experiencesas the mad cow disease which wasas a result of the ‘unnatural’ breed-ing of cattle.

Some of the documented cases haveresulted in death. In 1989, a geneti-cally altered food supplement re-sulted in the death of dozens ofAmericans and left thousands af-flicted and impaired. A settlement of2 billion dollars was paid by the com-pany responsible.

Some GMO approved products in-clude herbicides are suspected ofcausing cancer. Other GMOs are sus-pected of having indirect and nontraceable effects on cancer rates. Inthe USA, cancer now afflicts 1 out ofevery 2 men and 1 out of every 3women. This has been attributed tothe rearranging of the natural orderthrough genetic mutations. GMOshave also being blamed for the ap-pearance of what are called superviruses, the increase in allergies,birth defects, toxicity and lowerednutrition.

As far as the environment is con-cerned, there is the fear that plant-ing herbicide resistant crops couldlead to sterile fields which will yieldlittle or no food and no shelter towildlife. Some species of animalsand plant life may disappear becauseof this disruption to the ecosystem.

There is also evidence that the genesfor herbicides resistance can spreadto the wild relatives of crops leavingplants which are resistant to weedkillers. The pollen spread by the windand insects could contaminate con-ventional and organic crops growingnearby.

Economically, many fear that the useof GMOs could alter traditional farm-ing systems since many of the seedsfrom GMOs cannot be replanted butrather new seeds have to be bought


BRAZIL INTERNATIONAL ROADTRANSPORT AGREEMENT

Following the signing of the Inter-national Road Transport Agreement, a site visit to the Linden- Lethemroad was organized as part of theeffort towards the implementationof the Agreement. The objectives ofthe site visit were:

1. To develop a map of the road

which describes in some detailit physical features; its condi-tion during the rainy season;location and gradients and de-scription of naturally occurringor man-made factors which in-fluence the state of the road.

2. To identify possible locationsfor the establishment of policestations and outposts; customsimmigration and forest wardens

BILATERAL COOPERATION

check points; trucks and bus-stops and sanitary conve-niences, customs facilities; roadtraffic signs.

The National Coordinating Commit-tee which has been mandated bycabinet to monitor cross border ac-tivities between Guyana and Brazil .

every year. This will mean that poorand not so poor farmers in the de-veloping world may become totallyreliant on trans national companies(TNC) for seeds, with translucentcosts to them and bigger profits forthe TNCs.

Trade Wars?

The USA is the biggest developer ofGMOs and has largely been promot-ing their positive aspects.

In the USA, GMOs are treated likeany other crops and do not have tobe labeled as such before they canbe marketed. The European

Union on the other hand has beenvery wary and negative of GMOs. Inlarge part they were influenced byexperiences such as the mad cowdisease which resulted from the un-natural breeding of cattle. Under theEuropean Union system, the pro-spective effects of GMOs on human,animal and plant life and on the en-vironment have to be carefully as-sessed before the products can bemarketed. 18 GMOs have been au-thorized in the EU but since Octo-ber 1998, no new GMOs have beenauthorized. This was due to the fact

that the EU’s regulatory regime wasconsidered incomplete to addressthe challenges posed by the moderntechnology of genetic

modification. The EU thus decidedto err on the side of caution and didnot approve any new GMOs. How-ever, a new regulatory frameworkwas adopted in March 2001 and en-tered into force in October 2002.The EU is also finalizing the adop-tion of rules on labeling and trace-ability aimed at responding to thedemands of its citizens for better andmore information.

These two different approaches haveresulted in a full scale trade war be-tween the two sides.

The USA accuses the EU of usingGMOs as a form of trade protection-ism, whilst the EU asserts that itsregulatory and labeling systems arescience and not economic based. Therest of the world is on the sidelines,but for the most part siding with andsharing the skepticism of the EU,leaving the USA isolated and stand-ing alone. The latest round in the warhas seen the USA announcing its in-tention to file a request for consul-tations at the WTO on the EU’s au-

thorization system for GMOs.

Where does Guyana stand?

Guyana is in the process of comingup with a policy on the matter. It isnot an issue which can be ignoredas being between the USA and theEU. Both the EU and the USA arebig trading partners for Guyana.Guyana exports a lot to the EU andimports a lot from the USA. Thismeans that in all probability, foodscontaining GMOs are coming in toGuyana from the USA. On the otherhand, Guyana must ensure that itexports to the EU and other suchmarkets are meeting their strict stan-dards for safety. Guyana will needto choose whether to followthe EU regime of strict regula-tion and labeling or the USAstance of no segregation be-tween GMO and other prod-ucts. Guyana also has a largeagricultural sector and mayhave to decide whether to in-vest resources into researchand experiments on GMOs. Allthese are issues which must be con-fronted sooner rather than later. Theway to be taken remains to be seen.

TAKATU BRIDGE PROJECT


A Malaysian expert on rambutan Cultivation, Dr. Tan Hoe arrived in Guyana on July 28, 2003. The Expertworks with the Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia and is here under the aegis of the Technical CooperationAgreement between the Governments of Guyana and Malaysia.During his visit, Dr. Tan is expected to sharenew technological methods for cultivating rambutan in a shorter time frame with farmers

MALAYSIA

The twenty second session of the Guyana/Cuba Joint Commission is Scheduled for September/October2003.The following agreements were concluded on July 10, as part of the implementation process for projectsagreed on at the twenty first session of the Guyana/Cuba Joint Commission:

• Cooperation Agreement between the Guyana Export Promotion Council and the Promotion Centre forCuban Exports.

• Agreement establishing the Guyana/Cuba Joint Business Development Council.

During the month of May, a Cuban Trade mission came to Guyana with the purpose of revitalizing andrebuilding trade relations. During this Trade Mission, the operation agreement between the GeorgetownChamber of Commerce of Guyana and the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba was renewed.The Cuban Delegationengaged in one and one discussions with Guyana’s Banking Agencies, travel agencies, tourism agencies,construction companies, import/export trading companies, seafood companies, distribution services, BANKSDIH Ltd and GNIC.EXPO CARIBE 2003 was held from the 8-13th June and four Guyanese companies (includingGafoors and a furniture company) participated in this event.

CUBA

In accordance with the Agreementon the construction of an Interna-tional Bridge across the takatu riversigned in 1982, the constructionacross the takatu river commencedin 2001. The target date for comple-

tion of the bridge was August 2002.However, construction ceased in June2002 owing to an internal investi-gation by the Brazilian Authorities.The NCC is in the process of consult-ing with the competent Ministries

and Agencies for the construction ofa Multi-purpose complex and asectoral development plan for regionnine.

Consultations are currently ongoing for the convening of the Fourth session of the Guyana/India JointCommission. Two ITEC Experts were deputed to Guyana in June 2003 and are attached to the NationalAgricultural Research Institute (NARI) and the National Dairy Development Programme (NDDP) respectively.

A work programme and MOU to promote cultural cooperation between the Governments of Guyana andIndia is expected to be concluded in August 2003 during His Excellency, Bharrat Jagdeo’s state visit toIndia.

A four-member delegation form CSIR visited Guyana on May 1-3, 2003 to assess and promote food processingand building material technologies that matches Guyana’s developmental needs.

INDIA


MOCO MOCO HYDROPOWER STATION

CHINA

Following the signing of the Bilateral Investment treaty (BIT) during the eighth session of the Guyana/ChinaJoint Commission on March 27, 2003 in Beijing China, consultations were held with representatives of theprivate and public sectors to commence the implementation and operationalisation of the BIT. Agencies are tosubmit detailed investment and joint venture proposals for the consideration of the Chinese Government. Fol-low-up consultations are ongoing with a view to sensitizing the private sector on the laws and regulations forinvesting with China.

The Moco Moco Hydropower Station was formally handed over to the Government of Guyana with the signing ofa Certificate of Handing-over on April 17, 2003, after Chinese technicians completed their final maintenanceoperations.

Recently, there was a landslide which resulted in major damage to the pipelines sourcing power from the MocoMoco hydro power project. In light of a request made by the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of ForeignTrade and International Cooperation has made a fresh approach to the Government of the Peoples’ Republic ofChina for a Chinese evaluation team to offer technical assistance to restore power supply to Moco Moco. Thisrequest is currently engaging the attention of the Chinese Government.

With the signing of the design control for the GICC on January 14, 2003, a request for geotechnical informationfor the construction of the GICC was made. The submission was made in May 2003 to the Chinese side.

GUYANA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER (GICC)

Initial discussions for technical assistance in the cultivation of bamboo craft was held during the visit by aChinese High Level Delegation led by Madame Wu Yi, State Councilor in January 2003. The detailed projectproposal was submitted to the Chinese Government for consideration during the eighth session of the Guyana/China Joint Commission. On June 13, 2003, the Exchange of Notes for the Bamboo Craft Project was signedbetween the Hon. Minister of Foreign Trade and International Cooperation and the Chinese Ambassador. TheExchange of Notes facilitates the dispatching of a team of three Chinese bamboo craft technicians to Guyana fora period of one (1) year and the provision of the necessary materials and equipment for the execution of theproject. The Department of International Cooperation will continue to monitor and facilitate the implementationof this project.

BAMBOO CRAFT PROJECT

NEW AMSTERDAM HOSPITAL PROJECT

The project for the reconstruction of the New Amsterdam hospital seeks to improve the provision of healthservices in Region 6 and its surrounding environs. The health sector will also receive a significant boost fromthe realization of this project.

The Honourable Clement J. Rohee signed the Exchange of Notes for the implementation of Phase II of theproject with His Excellency Ambassador Masateru Ito, Japanese Non-Resident Ambassador to Guyana onJuly 15, 2003.

JAPAN


The Ministry of Foreign Trade andInternational Cooperation is thenewly appointed Focal Point forcooperation with the Organisationof American States and has ben-efited tremendously from thispartnership. As the focal point, itfacilitated the participation ofGuyanese official at seminars andtraining courses.The Governmentof Guyana has submitted scholar-

COOPERATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

ship application forms for individu-als to pursue and advance studiesoverseas under the OAS 2003Agency Place Graduate Fellowshipand Fulbright –OAS Ecology.The In-ter-American Agency for cooperationand Development (IACD) of theOrganisation of American States in-vited the Government of Guyana tosubmit five (5) project concepts forthe OAS/FEMCIDI Programming

process that addressing thecountry’s national agenda. How-ever, only (1) project conceptsmet with the OAS Guidelines andis presently being considered forfunding ; Literacy and Life Skills:Programming for Out of School,Youth and Young People, submit-ted by the Ministry of Education.

In becoming a member of theCommonwealth Secretariat, theGovernment of Guyana has ben-efited from positive relations withits association, especially with re-gards to technical cooperation.OnJuly 2-6, 2003 Ms. FrançoiseChapman, Desk Officer for theGovernance and Institutional De-velopment Division (GIDD), Com-monwealth Secretariat paid an of-ficial visit to evaluate Guyana’s

COMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT

technical assistance and trainingneeds.An inter-agency meeting wasconvened and arising from the meet-ing it is expected that project pro-posals for technical assistance andtraining needs would be formulatedand submitted to the Ministry ofForeign Trade and International Co-operation, the designated FocalPoint to examine the merit of theproject proposal and for onwardtransmission to the Commonwealth

Secretariat.The commonwealthSecretariat in collaboration withthe Foreign Service convened aworkshop for middle-senior careerprofessionals on Effective Negotia-tions Skills during the Period May19- 31, 2003. two members ofstaff of the Department of Inter-national Cooperation representedthe Ministry at the workshop.

TECHNICAL TRAINING

The Department of International Cooperation facilitated the participation of Three Guyanese in Three TechnicalTraining offers from the Government of Japan in the following areas:

· Sustainable Mineral Development

· Environmental Policy and Environmental Management Systems

· Fire Fighting Techniques II

JAPAN


A NATIONAL TRADE STRATEGY FOR GUYANA

SPEECH BY HON. CLEMENT J. ROHEE, MINISTER OF FOREIGNTRADE AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AT A SEMINAR ON

“A NATIONAL TRADE STRATEGY FOR GUYANA”LE MERIDIEN PEGASUS, APRIL 17, 2003

Salutations.

It give me great pleasure to join with previous speakersto welcome you to this important event.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express mydeepest gratitude to USAID for providing the valuableresources to Dr. Craig VanGraastek to facilitate the prepa-ration of a National Trade Strategyfor the Government of Guyana.

Soon after assuming my new responsibility in April 2001as Minister of Foreign Trade and International Coopera-tion it occurred to me that the Government of Guyanathrough the Ministry of Foreign Trade and InternationalCooperation would be doing a great disservice to thepeople of Guyana and indeed Caricom if it were to con-tinue participating and executing national trade policyvis-a-vis the current external trade negotiations in theabsence of a clearly formulated National Trade Policy.

Moreover, having regard to the complex and multifac-eted nature to which global trade arrangements haveevolved it became increasingly clear to me that at thenational level greater coherence and inter-agency coop-eration and collaboration is a critical factor if our na-tional interests were to be advanced at the relevant forainternationally.

I am therefore pleased to be part of this important eventwhich has been organized to present to the public ourNational Trade Strategy.

To my understanding, strategy is all about making dis-crete choices along clear dimensions). According toMark Fuller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofMonitor Company; Strategy is informed choice andtimely action”.

Moreover, writing in their book “Ploughing the Sea” co-authors Fairbanks and Lindsay had this to say;

“Given the constraints of the capitalist system,

the trend towards increasingly open economiesand the lack of a viable alternative, we advisethose interested in economic development tothink about the following lines:-

1: good strategy is critical to successful business(Government and Private)

2: successful business create wealth and employment;3: therefore, good strategy is critical to wealth and

employment”

The most recent expression of Guyana’s National De-velopment Strategy is the Government of Guyana 2003Budget titled: “Confronting the challenges: staying oncourse for a prosperous Guyana”.

Coming as a logical off-spring of the National Develop-ment Strategy and its companion; the Interim PovertyReduction Strategy, the main thrust of the 2003 Budgetmust be seen as a further attempt by Government tomaintain focus on international competitiveness as akey element of its export-led growth policy.

At the level of Caricom, the strategy; thus far, has beento win competitiveness through preferential arrange-ments and non-reciprocal trade. Among the justifica-tions for this strategy is the view that such a strategy isnecessary to compensate for the small size of popula-tion, labour force and internal market. This strategy isreflected in Caricom’s efforts towards maintaining theEU Commodity Protocols, seeking Special and Differen-tial Treatment within new agreements at the WTO, theFree Trade Area of the Americas and with our EU part-ners.

However, in the absence of sufficient focus on the sup-ply-side constraints in trade policy, these efforts haveyielded little benefits in transforming the economies ofthe region.

However, CARICOM’s strategy is likely to undergo sig-nificant adjustments in the not too distant future. Theobligations to be assumed under new trading arrange-


ments between the ACP and the EU, the FTAA and anynew WTO round will probably enter into force between2005 and 2008; with varying phasing-in periods. Thereis therefore not much time left to begin putting in placethe adjustments needed.

Adjustment to the changes ahead is not going to bepainless, major disruptions are forecast for traditionalsectors - export agriculture, import-substitution, manu-facturing, retailing and customs revenue. Even com-modity-type tourism and off-shore finance will comeunder threat.

With the coming into being of the WTO a whole newarchitecture has emerged with the WTO streetching itsdisciplines of non-discriminatory

liberalization to areas such as services, intellectual prop-erty, government procurement and investment.

Coupled with this , is the fact that market economics,free trade and globalization have become the new man-tra for how economies should be properly managed anddevelopment attained.

Globalization and Capitalism after the triumphalism ofthe 1990’s are revealing more clearly their dark sides.The alarming rise in inequality between and within coun-tries poor and rich, environmental degradation, the rapidspread worldwide of HIV/AIDS and illicit drugs not tomention the corruption of indigenous cultures, and nowthe globalization of Severe Acute ResparatorySyndrome(SARS) all point to the increasing inter-de-pendence of the world in which we live.

We do not have to look far to see how this global phe-nomenon is manifesting itself at the national level.

Note for example the recent disclosure in the local me-dia that Guyana will not receive PL480 wheat aid thisyear because of; “world wide emergencies involvingthe war in Iraq and famine in Africa”.

Such a development was widely anticipated.

In his 2003 Budget Speech my colleague MinisterKowlessar had this to say:

“The war in Iraq will have a negative impact onworld trade and investment. Also it is evidentthat resources will have to be found to finance

the cost of the war and the reconstruction ofIraq, a reality that would see the drastic reduc-tion in development aid to our countries. Sucha development would certainly undermine theprospects for recovery in our economies, espe-cially the vital tourism sector of the CaribbeanIslands and postpone growth”.

As a consequence, this situation has given rise to thefundamental role and place of national strategies to helpcountries find the linkages with the world economy.Such strategies are also essential in order to deal withthe disruptive forces being generated and introducedby globalization within countries such as Guyana.

In this regard, the National Trade Strategy is of vitalimportance. What we have sought to do is to identifythose issues of vital importance to Guyana and developa raft of strategic objectives, formulate the various op-tions and identify the basic technical and institutionalsupport that is required to actively pursue those strate-gic objectives in the short, medium and long term.

Since we are currently involved in three theatres of ex-ternal trade negotiations, the WTO, FTAA and ACP-EU,emphasis is placed on our negotiating strategy in theshort and medium term. Mind you, all of this should inno way imply that no consideration is given to tacticalconsiderations. But whether we take a tactical or strate-gic approach or a combination of both when treatingwith a particular issue under negotiation the bottomline is to avoid being hustled into negotiations to adopta position or sign on to an agreement that is inimical tothe interests of Guyana.

I would like to commend this National Trade Strategyto the Donor Community, the University of Guyana,the Business Community, the Trade Unions, the Con-sumer Association and other stakeholders.

It is our guide to action.And talking about strategy here’s what the famous Ameri-can actorWoody Allen said in “My Speech to the Graduates”;

“The task is to avoid the pitfalls, seize theopportunities and get back home by six o’clock”

Thank You.


I would like to welcome you all to this meeting whichaddresses the important issue of international tradeand development viewed from a human developmentperspective.

I am particularly pleased that Guyana has been selectedas the venue for this meeting and I am personally veryhappy that I have been asked to give the opening ad-dress at this meeting since, as you may be aware, I havebeen assigned responsibility by Heads of Governmentof Caricom to Superintend the negotiations at the WTO.I am therefore naturally anxious to bring greater clarity,through discussions of this nature, to the various issueson the international trade agenda.

Let me begin by observing, somewhat provocatively thatalthough we were told nearly a decade ago that in con-clusion of the Uruguay Round agreements, which werepremised on the creation of a liberalized global tradingregime, would bring increased prosperity to our coun-tries, we are yet to realize these benefits. In fact, sincethe conclusion of the agreements we have witnessedfinancial crises in East Asia, economic turmoil in LatinAmerica, most noteworthy in Argentina, and a slowdown in the global economy with countries such as Ja-pan experiencing an unusually long downturn in itseconomy. Even the United States has experienced eco-nomic difficulties in the form of weak output, burgeon-ing deficits and increased unemployment and, even as Ispeak to you, continues to struggle to provide a stimu-lus, through increased tax cuts, to generate an expan-sion of growth in the economy. At the same time, sincethe conclusion of the Uruguay Round agreements, wehave witnessed growing income disparities within thedeveloped and developing countries with an increasedthreat of the marginalization of a number of developingcountries at the lower end of the development scalenotably in Africa.

This I submit is the context which must inform our de-liberations at this meeting.

The publication, “Making Global Trade Work for People”

MAKING GLOBAL TRADE WORK FOR PEOPLE

WELCOME ADDRESS BY THE HON. MINISTER OF FOREIGN TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION,CLEMENT J. ROHEE, TO THE REGIONAL CONSULTATIONS ON MAKING GLOBAL TRADE WORK FOR PEOPLE

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA, MAY 28, 2003.

is most welcome since it brings a novel ‘human devel-opment’ perspective to bear on the analysis of develop-ments in the multilateral trading system.I would like to commend UNDP and the other collabo-rating institutions for their courage in pressing aheadwith the publication in the face of opposition from thosewho insist on a ‘monolithic’ view of international traderelations that is often neglectful of the interests of thedeveloping countries.

The merit of the study is that it provides an objectiveanalysis of developments in the international tradingregime which essentially confirms the concerns that havebeen consistently articulated by the developing coun-tries over the years.

Given the comprehensive nature of the report, I willconfine myself to some of the main issues which I be-lieve is important to highlight namely, the structureand functioning of the international trading system andits relationship to development; the implications of thespecific agreements concluded under the Uruguay Roundas well as the new issues proposed for negotiation; spe-cial and differential treatment (SDT); governance of thesystem (including the dispute settlement arrangements);and the way forward.

In terms of the role of trade and its relationship to de-velopment, the book makes a number of importantobservations. It argues for example, that although tradeprovides opportunities for growth, there is no automaticrelationship between the two. It also debunks the longheld argument that trade liberalisation is essential forgrowth. Indeed, it notes that the available evidencedoes not support this proposition which in fact weak-ens the arguments in favour of unfettered tradeliberalisation which has been promoted as a panaceafor stimulating development. For this reason the studypoints to the need for the developing countries to begiven greater policy space, to devise appropriate strate-gies which Danny Rodrik described as “the local her-esies” that would enable them to stimulate develop-ment and also to benefit from increased trade


liberalisation. At the same time it is recognised thatthe ‘single undertaking’ principle embodied in the Uru-guay Round Agreements (which requires total insteadof selective adoption of the package of agreements ne-gotiated within the WTO) has limited the capacity ofgovernments to pursue a totally independent policy sincetheir options are often constrained by the requirementto conform to the provisions of the various multilateraltrade agreements.

It is also quite interesting that the study underlines thefact that many of the countries in East Asia, notably theRepublic of Korea as indeed Japan which achieved eco-nomic success adopted a gradual and selective approachto trade liberalisation which in fact followed the achieve-ment of higher levels of growth instead of the reverse.

It is also noteworthy, from a development point of view,that the study affirms that, contrary to the predomi-nant focus on market forces, many developed countriesat a comparable level of development to those of thedeveloping countries and also the successful economiesof East Asia pursued a strategy in which the govern-ment made significant interventions in the developmentprocess. It is interesting that this position is in factconsistent with the arguments advanced by JosephStiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics, former Chairmanof the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (USA)and until recently, Senior Vice President of the WorldBank that the market on its own cannot produce socialequity and that government intervention is invariablynecessary in order to guarantee suitable policy out-comes.

Regarding the existing trade regime, the study correctlypoints to the fact that the Uruguay Round of Multilat-eral Trade Negotiations and the establishment of theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) represent a major shiftfrom previous rounds of multilateral trade negotiationswhich focused mainly on market access for traded goods.In contrast, the issues included in the new trading re-gime are more extensive and indeed much more intru-sive in domestic policy.

In terms of the actual agreements concluded during theUruguay Round with special reference to those relatingto Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs),Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and theGeneral Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), thedeveloping countries have long argued that many of the

provisions of these agreements have operated to theirdisadvantage . The UNDP study supports this conten-tion in that it documents specific areas in which theseagreements have had a negative impact on the interestsof the developing countries. For this reason it is impor-tant for the developing countries to continue to pressfor a review of the implementation of the various agree-ments with a view to correcting their adverse effects.

Based on this reality, the developing countries wouldalso need to resist the inclusion of new items such asthe proposed multilateral agreement on investment,trade facilitation, competition policy and governmentprocurement the so-called Singapore issues on the WTOagenda until the implications of the existing agreementsare satisfactorily resolved.

At the same time, the report reinforces the case for Spe-cial and Differential Treatment (SDT) which it sees asnecessary for the effective functioning of a multilateraltrading system involving participants at different levelsof development. Indeed, although the Uruguay Roundagreements and the Doha Ministerial meeting endorsethe principle of SDT, in some cases their appears to be aweakening of the resolve of some developing countriesin defending the principle, partly because of the ideo-logical influence of neo-liberalism which asserts themerits of a reciprocity based trading regime. But this,as the report has shown, is erroneous. The report there-fore serves as an important reminder of the need for thedeveloping countries to continue to defend the prin-ciple of Special and Differential Treatment, given theasymmetric nature of the economic and trading rela-tions between the developed and the developing coun-tries. To this end, the recommendation in the reportfor the WTO Ministerial Meeting to be held in Cancun,Mexico in September 2003 to adopt an unequivocaldeclaration in support of SDT should be fully supportedby the developing countries since such a declarationwould put an end to the equivocation and ambivalenceon the subject which apparently exists in some quar-ters.

The governance of the multilateral trading regime inthe context of the operations of the WTO, which hasbeen an issue of major concern on the part of the devel-oping countries is also creatively addressed in the re-port. In this connection, it is a well known fact that thedeveloping countries have been unhappy with the un-democratic nature of the consultative process within


the WTO, reflected in the so-called ‘green room’ processwhich has tended to exclude the majority of the devel-oping countries from the negotiation of critical issues.

The report has advanced a number of interesting pro-posals aimed at improving the negotiating processwithin the WTO, including increasing the size of thequorum required for decision-making, facilitating theparticipation of countries not represented in Genevathrough video Conferencing and also strengthening thecapacity of the least developed countries (LDCs) to par-ticipate in the negotiations. Of even greater importancehowever, is the need for the developing countries toseek to go beyond the existing limited grouping of so-called ‘like-minded countries’ and to introduce into thenegotiating process a broader coalition of developingcountries such as currently exists in the Group of 77.

Related to the issue of governance of the multilateraltrading system are the current provisions for DisputesSettlement established within the framework of theWTO. Many developing countries believe that the sys-tem places the developing countries at a disadvantagenot only because they are less able to participate effec-tively in the process but that in a system which is basedon the existence of retaliatory capacity, the developedcountries are in a much better position to defend theirinterests on this basis. For this reason, there is consid-erable merit in the proposal contained in the UNDP re-port which envisages the possibility of collective retali-ation on the part of developing countries to enforcecompliance of developed countries with their trade ob-ligations.

Based on its analysis of the existing multilateral tradingregime, the report affirms a number of important prin-ciples, namely:

(i) trade is a means to an end and not an end in itself;

(ii) trade rules should allow for diversity in nationalinstitutions and development priorities; and

(iii) no country has the right to impose institutionalpreferences on the other.

It also concludes that the adoption of a human devel-opment oriented trade regime would give governmentsthe necessary space to design policies that embody theseprinciples.

The UNDP report confirms a number of important prin-ciples that have been articulated by the developing coun-tries for some time and should therefore be used as abasis for advancing the cause of the developing coun-tries in shaping the configuration of the existing multi-lateral trading regime.

One hardly needs to emphasise the importance of tradeissues in the small countries of the Caribbean given their‘openness’ to external economic forces and the signifi-cant trade dependency ratios prevalent in these econo-mies. Moreover, the reality is that the countries of theCaribbean region are currently engaged in carrying outsimultaneously three separate sets of negotiations inthe context of the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement, the FTAAand the WTO. Needless to say the UNDP report pro-vides not only significant intellectual support but alsohas tremendous psychological value in affirming thatthe developing countries have all along been on theright path in terms of the positions they have advancedin the negotiations.

In closing, I would like to refer to the recent address tothe Nation by the President of the Republic of Guyana,H.E. Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo on the occasion of the 37th An-niversary of Guyana’s Independence. This address wasdelivered on May 26, 2003.

“While the globalization process seeks to remove tradebarriers, regrettably global politics focuses on defend-ing narrow national interests, instead of safeguardingcollective concerns and promoting the imperatives ofinterdependence. Recently, because of War and the fightagainst international terrorism, several of the pressingissues affecting developing countries have been placedon the backburner of the agenda of international orga-nizations.

Globalization is moving rapidly and in its wake it isleaving a dismantled trade and economic infrastructureto which we have been accustomed to for decades. Thereplacement proposals tabled by the major trading blocswithin the various theatres of negotiations still do notanswer the concerns of developing countries. Let mereiterate: we are not against free trade. What we arepursuing at the national and Caricom levels are tradingarrangements that would not push us further into themargins of development. Arrangements that wouldrecognise our peculiarities and provide transitional sup-port”.


15TH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE ANDECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (COTED)

ADDRESS BY THE HON. CLEMENT J. ROHEE, MINISTER OF FOREIGN TRADE & INTERNATIONALCOOPERATION, GUYANA TO THE 15TH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT (COTED) MAY 29-30, 2003 - GEORGETOWN, GUYANA

Colleagues,

Welcome once again to Guyana. It’s always a pleasurehaving you in Georgetown, location of the Headquar-ters of the Caribbean Community.

Much has happened since our last COTED Meeting. TheUS-led war in Iraq has come and gone but it has left inits wake doubts about the efficacy of multilaterialismversus unilateralism and the use of trade as a foreignpolicy stick to punish those countries who did not comeout in support of the war.

According to Fred Bergensen, Director of the Washing-ton-based Institute for International Economics “TheUS Government for sometime is going to differentiatebetween countries that it has designated as membersof the “Coalition of the Willing” and the other countrieswho were not as cooperative”.

This “differentiation” was clearly demonstrated in thedelaying tactics adopted by the Administration in rela-tion to the signing of the US/Chile Free Trade Agree-ment because Chile did not cooperate. However, theAdministration did go ahead and signed the Singapore-US Free Trade Agreement even though the Agreementwith Chile was ready for signing long before.The war has had its effects on the economies of a num-ber of countries including the US itself which is cur-rently experiencing economic difficulties in the form ofweak output, burgeoning deficits and increased unem-ployment and even as I speak, continue to struggle toprovide a stimulus, through increased tax cuts to gener-ate an expansion of growth in the economy.

Compounding the situation further was the decliningtrade in goods between 2001-2002 as a result of theeconomic slow down in the main import markets, fall-ing prices for commodities and manufactured goods andinternal economic problems in the countries of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean.

According to ECLAC’s 2001-2002 Report; “The inter-national economic down turn has demonstrated that

economies which are heavily dependent on export earn-ings from just a few products or markets are more vul-nerable than the economies with more diversified ex-ports”.

And as though our economic woes and distresses werenot enough following September 11, and the war inIraq we witnessed the launching of another “weapon ofmass destruction” when one of the largest agriculturalproducers in the North began dumping five primary farmcommodities on the global markets by exporting corn,soyabean, wheat, rice and cotton at prices far belowtheir production costs in an effort to wipe out globalcompetition.

Take the example of rice. In Ghana about 40% of riceis imported from the US and is substantially cheaperthan local produce. But while the people are eatingcheaper rice, farmers lose their livelihoods.

The Mexican farmers, who cultivate corn on a muchsmaller scale, simply can’t compete. Many are trying tomake up for lost income by increasing the area theycultivate even if this means - as it often does - farmingenvironmentally fragile land. Thousands are leaving theland that has supported their families for generations

Hon. Rohee, Minister of Foreign Trade & InternationalCooperation at the 15th COTED.


to go to the cities, where there is already huge pressureon jobs and housing.In Zambia, the low world cotton prices continue to de-cide whether or not an average family will have enoughto eat, whether they can pay for health costs, andwhether they can keep a large number of children inschool. Most people in Zambia continue to survive ona meal a day and it seems most families will continueto go hungry and only pray for a better future.

These are important lessons for us to bear in mind inrespect of the regional rice Industry which is comingunder similar stress and strain and could virtually dis-appear as a regional industry if we don’t wake up andstop being our own worst enemy in respect of this par-ticular industry.

Since our last COTED Meeting we have seen the emer-gence of SARS. And while the war in Iraq has come andgone, from all indications it seems that SARS is here tostay.The economic fall out from SARS has sent tremors fromAsia to North America. This has manifested itself in thedownward revision in global growth forecasts from in-vestment banks and pronouncements from the Paris-based OECD claiming that the economic impact couldbe significant. At the sametime, the WTO warned thatglobal commerce would be shaken if China was se-verely hit by the SARS crisis.z§�So said, so done. The epidemic is helping perpetu-ate the under- valuation of Asian currencies. Recentweeks have seen dramatic rises not only in the value ofthe EURO against the dollar but of peripheral curren-cies such as those of Canada, Australia and Mexico.These currencies are all up by 15 percent or more thisyear whereas Asian economies have advanced fraction-ally.

SARS has also made Asian Governments more depen-dent than ever to extract the maximum export benefitfrom their under-valued currencies. They been continueto accumulate foreign exchange resources rather thanengaging in currency appreciation. At the same time,Asian efforts to diversify their huge foreign exchangeresources away from the dollar have contributed to theEURO’s dramatic gains.

Thus far, we in the Caribbean have been spared the wrathof SARS. Let us keep it that way.

Mr. Chairman,

Yesterday, we participated at the launch of the book

“Making Global Trade Work for People,” published byUNDP and other collaborating institutions. As I said atthat launch, the publication brings a novel human de-velopment perspective to bear on the analysis of devel-opment in the international trading system. I com-mended the publishers’ courage in pressing ahead withthe publication in the face of opposition from those whoinsist on a monolithic view of international trade rela-tions that is often neglectful of the interests of the de-veloping countries.

Mr. Chairman,

These matters must be of pressing concern to COTEDas we deliberate over the next few days on the keydevelopment issues related to agriculture and our ex-ternal negotiations at the WTO, ACP-EU and FTAA notto mention the CSME.

It must be of fundamental concern to us that develop-ment issues no longer feature as a priority, having beenremoved from its earlier position as the central concernon the international agenda and selectively re-cast ac-cording to neo- liberal policy preferences.

Through our own modest efforts we need to bring backdevelopment to the center stage of the internationalpolitical and economic agenda and it is not fortuitousthat we, as Trade Ministers and Negotiators have inour hand the tools to do so. I refer to the current nego-tiations at the WTO, ACP-EU and FTAA where the devel-opment dimension of these trade negotiations willprove to be the litmus test for our own survival asvulnerable, fragile economies. That is why we mustnever succumb to the generalized mood of resignationand acceptance of the status quo. We must together,realize our own potential for change and action, mobi-lize ourselves and become active shapers of our owndestiny and regain our policy autonomy. We must presson with initiatives such as the Regional IntegrationFund, and other innovative approaches to ensure ourinterests are safeguarded in future multilateral tradeagreements.

We should support the recent call from the world rich-est Nations, to create an International Fund to helpdeveloping countries. U.K Chancellor of the ExchequerGordon Brown made this call at the World Bank’s An-nual Conference on Development Economics held re-cently in Paris.

Mr. Brown proposed a fund raising facility for the pur-pose of raising US$50 billion annually by 2015.


We should also support the long standing Tobin Taxwhich calls for a 0.5% on speculative capital movementswhich “I was aware of the arguments, but it’s not untilyou see first hand the consequences of policies that yousee they need to be changed” he added.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by quoting fromthe address by H.E. the President of Guyana on the oc-casion of the 37th Anniversary of our country’s Inde-pendence.

“While globalization process seeks to remove trade bar-riers, regrettably global politics focuses on defendingnarrow national interests, instead of safeguarding col-lective concerns and promoting the imperatives of in-terdependence. Recently, because of war and the fightagainst international terrorism, several of the pressingissues affecting developing countries have been placedon the backburner of the agenda of international orga-nizations.”

President Jagdeo went on to state;

“Globalization is moving rapidly and in its wake it isleaving a dismantled trade and economic infrastructureto which we have been accustomed to for decades. Thereplacement proposals tabled by the major trading blocswithin the various theatres of negotiations still do notanswer the concerns of developing countries. Let mereiterate: we are not against free trade. What we arepursuing at the national and Caricom levels are tradingarrangements that would not push us further intothe margins of development. Arrangements thatwould recognize our peculiarities and provide transi-tional support.”

Mr. Chairman, one final comment. At the 14th COTEDI had cause to express concern over the lengthy dizzy-ing agenda for that meeting. I have to once again ex-press my concern over the length of the Agenda for the15th COTED. It does not allow for the fullest ventilationof views on matters of concern to Ministers. It is aconcern that needs to be addressed in respect of futureCOTED Meetings.

Participants at 15th COTED MeetingMay 29-30, 2003, Georgetown, Guyana


His Excellency Ambassador of the People’s Republicof China Mr. Song Tao, Hon. Minister of Tourism,Industry & Commerce, DistinguishedRepresentatives for the Chinese Embassy, SpecialInvitees, Members of the Press, Ladies andGentlemen.

On the occasion of the signing of the Exchange ofNotes for the Bamboo Craft Project, I wish toexpress my profound gratitude and appreciationfor the generous assistance the Government of thePeople’s Republic of China is today extending tothe Government of Guyana for this Project.

The Signing of these Exchange of Notes willfacilitate the dispatching of a team of three Bambootechnicians to work in Guyana for a period of oneyear. It will also make provisions for the supply ofthe necessary materials including equipment, toolsand instruments etc, which is pivotal for theimplementation of this project.

The total expenses (¥1,700,000 Yuan)(approximately US$202,380) to be incurred forthis project shall be covered by two grants. Onegrant provided in the Exchange of Notes betweenthe Governments of China and Guyana on February29, 1996, and the other grant provided in theExchange of Notes between the Governments ofChina and Guyana on June 29, 2001

Over the years, the Government of Guyana hasbenefited extensively from economic and technicalcooperation with the People’s Republic of Chinain the following areas:

· The Moco Moco Hydropower Station

· Interest Free Loans

· Technical Cooperation for Developing

THE BAMBOO CRAFT PROJECT

Speech by Hon. Minister of Foreign Trade & International CooperationOn the occasion of the Signing of the Exchange of Notes for the Bamboo Craft Project

TaKuba Lodge, Georgetown, Guyana, June 13, 2003

Countries (TCDC) technical training awardsfor Guyana

· A Bilateral Trade Agreement

· Medical Brigade

· The Guyana International Conference CentreProject

At the recently concluded Eight Session of theGuyana/China Joint Commission; an Agreementfor the Promotion and Protection of Investmentand a ¥10M Yuan (approximately US$1.2M) Grantfor the construction of the Guyana InternationalConference Centre were signed between our twocountries.

Our Bilateral ties were further strengthened by H.E.President Jagdeo’s State visit to the People’sRepublic of China in March this year. Since theassumption of office, H.E. President Jagdeo wasthe first Head of State received by H.E. PresidentHu Jin Tao. During the State visit, the two Headsof States had discussions on issues which were ofmutual concern to both countries.

Guyana’s relations with the People’s Republic ofChina is premised on building strong partnershipthrough the development and expansion of existingbilateral ties. Both countries have enjoyed overthree decades of friendly and fruitful bilateralrelations in areas of diplomatic relations, trade,economic and technical cooperation.

The Signing of this Exchange of Notes will markanother milestone in our relations with the People’sRepublic of China, which will contributesignificantly to the strengthening and the deepeningof relations between Guyana and the People’sRepublic of China.

inside this issue - organization of american states

Documents