EPHA question: EPHA believes that the views and resources of transnational corporations carry too much weight in World Trade Organization talks as compared with those of UN specialised agencies, such as the World Health Organization, and civil society. How can a greater balance be achieved?
Robert Madelin: All players in the process have an opportunity to influence the talks only through WTO member governments. Inter-governmental organisations, companies and NGOs therefore seek access to the delegations either via the process in Geneva (at WTO headquarters) or in member countries or at the EU level. In my opinion, multinationals don’t get better access than other stakeholders in Europe - nor do they have better access through the channels of Geneva.
On the other hand, I do recognise that there is a resource issue. Mr Lamy (Trade Commissioner) and his predecessors have agreed that we should not give core funding. However, we do offer selective support for travel for civil society dialogue. In addition, NGO platforms are now sharing better among themselves and it is making the non-governmental sector more effective in the process.
With regard to the World Health Organization, we have proposed in the past few days that it play a stronger role in resolving the outstanding conflict on promoting access to medicines via the WTO intellectual property regime. A multilateral approach may produce a much-needed solution.
EPHA question: DG Trade’s dialogue with civil society is now almost four years old. EPHA and other health and environmental groups have welcomed the opportunity to take part both in its meetings in Brussels and to attend the Seattle and the Doha ministerials with the support of the EU. From your perspective, what have been the greatest benefits of this dialogue? How could it be improved to make it even more relevant and useful?
Madelin: The first thing to say here is that DG Trade has new people and expertise to consult prior to trade negotiations. The dialogue has extended our talks beyond those with the trade ministers. On agriculture and intellectual property rights issues, our knowledge has been strongly enriched. We also have a greater understanding of concerns about deregulation - on water, for example.
The question of how to make the dialogue more relevant and useful is a question we keep asking ourselves. While the structures for information sharing are good, we all feel that we lack the ability to construct and sustain a more conclusive and deeper discussion. But we are at the beginning of the Doha process, and the potential to build bridges will be increased, I feel, as the end-game approaches and hard choices have to be made. On this, we welcome your readers’ ideas during the months leading up to the Cancun conference.
EPHA question: Some members of civil society have been critical of aspects of the dialogue process. For example, health groups say that on the GATS consultation vital pieces of information, such as what requests the EU has made to other countries, were not made available and the time frame was too short for the Commission to make credible due consideration of civil society input. What is your reaction to this?
Madelin: There are always problems associated with the process of dialogue on politically sensitive issues. We are conscious of the criticism of our handling of the recent GATS consultation process. We felt that we were protecting governments in developing countries from being exposed to a public market-opening campaign. However, at least Canada, we understand, has undertaken to publish its services offer: we are also keeping our own policy on these issues under active review.
Clearly, the process on offers from us to countries is likely to be more open than on requests. In the negotiations on services, we are certainly ready to brief those involved in the dialogue process.
The civil dialogue process is evolving very rapidly. We try to maintain the pace. Five years ago, no-one was interested in a dialogue on trade. Since then, there has been a big increase in what stakeholders expect.
EPHA question: In December, Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy launched an new initiative aimed at promoting agricultural trading opportunities in developing countries through reductions in western farm subsidies. EPHA welcomes this move as a step towards greater economic stability in the many countries that are primarily dependent on agriculture. Is the aim of this initiative to reduce inequities in access to markets between developing and developed countries or does it go beyond this to wider development objectives?
Madelin: The contribution that trade can make is to open access to markets. Trade opportunities are part of the needs for development. At the same time, it is not enough to believe that this will answer all the problems. If roads do not exist and shipping facilities are not available, developing countries will not get their products onto European markets. The problems Africa faces are much more serious than perceived by many. There are huge needs for seeds and fertilisers, for example, at prices that allow farmers to be competitive on world markets. But more trade opportunities here in Europe must also be part of the solution.
The agriculture negotiations cover three issues: access to EU markets, domestic support for agriculture and export subsidies. The Lamy-Fischler package is designed encourage a reduction in domestic and export subsidies. They need to be fully approved by Member States and then they will be taken to Geneva. Initial indications are that countries have been favourably surprised by the detail of the proposals. They welcome the EU willingness to give figures on subsidy reductions.
The special needs of some countries might be met by a "Development box". This is to say a specially-designed, fourth element to the negotiations. It would be aimed at helping countries to deal with their own needs in terms of agricultural production.
EPHA question: While trade brings many benefits for health, EPHA is concerned that the sophisticated marketing of cigarettes and fast foods and fizzy drinks, such as McDonalds and Coca Cola, are creating additional health problems for developing countries. Reports show that patterns of disease are changing. In the past, ill-health in developing countries was dominated by communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Today, global disease patterns are dominated by diet-related, non-communicable diseases, such as heart disease, cancers and diabetes. How can trade measures be used to positively address this problem?
Madelin: This would be a bit difficult. These issues are deeply embedded in the culture of every society. They cannot be dealt with by making changes at national borders. Within countries, as people become better off, they want to eat more meat. Eating imported foods that are advertised on the television is considered a sign of affluence, and McDonalds are popular around the world.
However, at multilateral trade negotiations, we can emphasise both the right to regulate and the importance of the capacity to regulate. DG Development’s programmes are key pillars in supporting capacity building for regulation in water and health care.
As we see it, the objective is not global free trade but trade within the framework that each government sets for itself. How this can be achieved in the areas of health and nutrition is not clear. Even in Europe we are not doing very well at getting the media message across about the relationship between diet and disease.
EPHA question: In some cases, codes and rules exist to protect health but they are ignored by the companies that are supposed to abide by them. For example, a WHO code agreed some years ago aims to limit the marketing of powdered baby milk in countries where clean water and sterilisation facilities are lacking. But the corporations producing infant formula have consistently side-stepped this code. Shouldn’t trade arrangements uphold these rules?
Madelin: Some aspects of this debate relate to corporate responsibility, and trade policy is an important part of the current EU debate on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). In addition, it should be a minimum requirement that WTO does not prevent WHO from enforcing its rules and codes. In Europe, we can then control our European companies, but we can’t do more than that.
EPHA question: The monitoring of health rules might best be achieved via an open forum or assembly at the WTO. Has this been considered?
Madelin: A forum in which UN bodies would have greater opportunities to co-ordinate with the WTO is a possibility. There is a clear mandate for this sort of activity in the Doha Declaration - and the new WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi has said that he would like to do something along these lines. Yes, theoretically, this is possible - though when it happened at Seattle it was not so successful. In Doha, such a forum was not included. It is possible that a day of dialogue in Cancun could be considered. We haven’t got around to discussing it yet.
Diana Smith interviewed Robert Madelin on 13 January 2003.
