Please List managers.

Can one of you subscribe Paul Kinteh on the list at this adress [log in to unmask]

Regards
Fye.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ylva Hernlund" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:47 AM
Subject: US/Africa: Trade Wars, 2 (fwd)


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:17:45 -0500
> From: Africa Action <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: US/Africa: Trade Wars, 2
> 
> AFRICA ACTION
> Africa Policy E-Journal
> June 29, 2003 (030629)
> 
> US/Africa: Trade Wars, 2
> (Reposted from sources cited below)
> 
> As President Bush prepares for his trip to Africa from July 7-11,
> trade is high on the agenda. The official speeches during the trip
> are sure to tout the mutual benefits of trade, as host countries
> hope to gain additional access to U.S. markets. At the same time,
> however, U.S. and African agendas are diametrically opposed on
> most issues being considered by the World Trade Organization
> which will hold its summit in Cancun, Mexico in September.
> 
> This set of two e-journal postings focuses on key trade issues, by
> highlighting recent African statements as well as analyses from the
> Third World Network, a group that closely monitors global
> negotiations on these issues. In order to cover a range of issues,
> the e-mail version of these postings contains brief excerpts only
> (as non-technical as possible) from a variety of documents. More
> details can be found in the archived version of the postings (goto
> http://www.africaaction.org/docs03/chr03.htm) and in links to other
> websites.
> 
> Trade issues will also be among topics covered at a July 2 Briefing
> for White House Press Corps and other media "Heart of Darkness: The
> Truth about Africa Policy under the Bush Administration"
> [http://www.africaaction.org/desk/adv0306a.htm]
> 
> Another posting for today contains (1) a speech by Mali President
> Amadou Toumani Toure, (2) a report by TWN Africa on the most recent
> African trade ministers' declaration. Below are excerpts from
> analyses on several other topics, including genetically modified
> food, patenting of life forms, and opposition to opening new
> negotiations on a WTO investment treaty,
> 
> +++++++++++++++++end summary/introduction+++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> (3) Genetically Modified Food and African Trade
> 
> In the leadup to his Africa visit, President Bush has repeatredly
> attacked European countries for promoting hunger in Africa by
> discouraning African access to genetically modified food products
> (GMO) exported by the United States. Even apart from issues of
> safety and damage to local seed varieties, however, a new empirical
> study distributed by Third World Network - Africa discounts the
> claims of GMO agriculture proponents that their products contribute
> to increased food supplies.
> 
> The study by Aaron deGrass, entitled "Genetically Modified Crops
> and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An
> Assessment of Current Evidence," evaluated GM cotton, sweet
> potatoes, and maize, in terms of their effectiveness and
> environmental sustainability under African conditions, particularly
> in Kenya and South Africa. He concludes that in these cases
> promotion of these crops is based not on evidence but on marketing
> by the leading producer Monsanto and its allies.
> See http://www.twnafrica.org/docs/GMCropsAfrica.pdf
> 
> For additional background on the U.S. trade challenge to Europe on
> genetically modified crops, see the Global Trade Watch report at
> http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7248
> On GM crops and hunger, see
> http://www.actionaid.org/ourpriorities/foodrights/gmtechnology/
> gmcrops.shtml [type URL on one line]
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 
> (4) Patenting of Life Forms
> 
> African countries have taken the lead in arguing against the
> application of intellectual property rights to patenting life
> forms, and proposed alternate measures to protect rights to
> traditional knowledge and biological diversity.  The Third World
> Network Info Service summarized new developments in the debate.
> 
> The full paper, distributed on June 11) is available on the
> website of the Third World Network (http://www.twnside.org.sg).
> Key excerpts on the African position are included here.
> 
> TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)
> Council Debates Patents on Life, Traditional Knowledge and
> Article 27.3(b)
> 
> By Martin Khor, Third World Network Geneva, 6 June 2003
> 
> The World Trade Organisation's  TRIPS Council on 4-5 June debated
> proposals on the three interconnected issues of the review of
> article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS agreement (dealing with biological
> materials), traditional knowledge and folklore, and the
> relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological
> Diversity (CBD)....
> 
> The Africa Group reiterated its position that the TRIPS Agreement
> should be amended to prohibit patents on all life forms, as such
> patents are contrary to the moral and cultural norms of many
> societies.  It also stressed that the requirement to protect
> plant varieties should not in any way undermine but support
> Members' rights to public goals such as food security and poverty
> elimination.  There is thus no basis to require Members to adopt
> inappropriate regimes for plant varieties protection.
> 
> It proposed that the WTO adopt a Decision on Traditional
> Knowledge which would establish a WTO Committee on traditional
> knowledge and genetic resources to oversee the protection of
> traditional knowledge and enforcement of rights of WTO Members.
> 
> The Group expressed concern that the review of TRIPS Article
> 27.3b has not been finalized and that the deadline of December
> 2002 set at Doha had passed. Protection of genetic resources and
> traditional knowledge will not be effective unless international
> mechanisms are established within the TRIPS framework.  Other
> means, such as access contracts and data bases for patent
> examination, can only be supplementary to such international
> mechanisms which must contain an obligation on members
> collectively and individually to prohibit and prevent
> misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
> 
> "Patents on life forms are unethical and the TRIPS Agreement
> should prohibit them through modifying the requirement to provide
> for patents on micro-organisms and on non-biological and
> microbiological processes for the production of plants and
> animals. Such patents are contrary to the moral and cultural
> norms of many societies in Members of the WTO." ...
> 
> On possible areas of agreement, the Group wishes that delegations
> confirm a common understanding on the following:
> 
> *  Members have the right and freedom to determine and adopt
> appropriate regimes in satisfying the requirement to protect
> plant varieties by effective sui generis systems.  Such regimes
> may draw upon the ITPGR, the CBD, UPOV 1978 and the Africa Model
> Legislation on protecting local communities, farmers and breeders
> and the Regulation of Access to biological resources. Systems of
> protection should address local realities and needs. The Africa
> Model Legislation and Regulation of Access is one example of a
> sui generis system which was developed to protect the rights and
> knowledge of farmers, indigenous peoples and local communities,
> in a manner suiting the circumstances of Africa.
> 
> *  The non-commercial use of plant varieties and the system of
> seed saving and exchange as well as selling among farmers, are
> rights and exceptions that should be ensured as matters of
> important public policy to ensure food security and preserve the
> integrity of rural or local communities.
> 
> While the legitimate rights of commercial plant breeders should
> be protected, these should be balanced against the needs of
> farmers and local communities.  Any sui generis system should
> enable Members to retain their right to adopt and develop
> measures that encourage and promote the traditions of their
> farming communities and indigenous peoples in innovating and
> developing new plant varieties and enhancing biodiversity. ,,,
> 
> *  Traditional knowledge and inventions of local communities
> should be protected. It is important to develop international
> mechanisms ensuring equity in the use of genetic resources and
> traditional knowledge through appropriate international
> arrangements to supplement domestic laws and measures.
> 
> *  Genetic resources and traditional knowledge should be
> documented to assist searches and examining novelty and inventive
> step.
> 
> ...
> 
> On areas of disagreement, the Africa Group proposes the
> following:
> 
> * Patenting life forms:  The Group maintains its reservations
> about patenting any life forms. It proposes that  "Article
> 27.3(b) be revised to prohibit patents on plants, animals,
> micro-organisms, essentially biological processes for the
> production of plants or animals, and non-biological and
> microbiological processes for the production of plants or
> animals." ...
> 
> 
> * Misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional
> knowledge:   Such misappropriation has taken the form of
> obtaining patents in developed countries inconsistent with the
> will of the communities and countries that have sovereignty over
> the resources.
> 
> The Group paper noted efforts such as developing access contracts
> and databases for patent offices (used to examine patent claims
> for novelty, inventiveness and usefulness) that are being
> undertaken in WIPO but considered them inadequate as these do not
> amount to effective international mechanisms. ,,,
> 
> Where any invention is derived from traditional knowledge or
> based on in situ genetic resources of any member, then no
> intellectual  property rights shall be granted in any member
> unless CBD requirements  have been fully complied with.  Members
> shall require in their laws that any IPRs granted in breach of
> this Decision shall be cancelled forthwith.  No IPRs shall be
> granted without recognition of  the traditional knowledge
> involved. ...
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> TWN Info Service on WTO Issues (June 03/5) 13 June 2003
> 
> NGOs Voice Opposition to WTO Investment Negotiations
> 
> by Kanaga Raja, Geneva 10 June 2003
> 
> A new global investment agreement proposed for negotiations at
> the WTO could inflict lasting damage on the livelihoods of poor
> people in developing countries, says a new report by the UK-based
> development agency ActionAid.
> 
> In its report "Unlimited Companies" released here Tuesday,
> ActionAid said that an investment agreement at the WTO would
> carry huge risks for the world's poorest people and called on the
> EU to drop its insistence on such an agreement.
> 
> [The ActionAid report is available on the ActionAid website at:
> http://www.actionaid.org/newsandmedia/agreement.shtml]
> 
> It also recommended that in the run-up to the Cancun Ministerial,
> developed countries should not attempt to persuade developing
> countries to trade off their interests with regards to investment
> in the hope of gaining in other areas such as agriculture.
> 
> Instead of a WTO investment agreement,  the international
> community should support the establishment of a binding
> international regulatory framework on multinational corporations,
> outside the WTO, that will strengthen the ability of developing
> countries to manage foreign investment to benefit the poor.
> 
> The ActionAid report was released just as the WTO Working Group
> on the Relationship between Trade and Investment (WGTI) is
> holding its final meeting here on 10-12 June before the 5th
> Ministerial in Cancun.
> 
> At a press briefing on 10 June, three other other
> non-governmental organizations   Third World Network, the Center
> for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the International
> Union of Foodworkers joined ActionAid in calling for a stop to
> efforts and pressures towards a WTO investment agreement.
> 
> According to the NGOs, the WTO members have been divided in their
> views on virtually every issue that has been discussed at the
> WGTI.  They said that it was clear that no consensus exists on if
> or how to approach the issue of whether to begin negotiations on
> investment.
> 
> Steve Porter, lead attorney for CIEL, said, "At the beginning of
> the final scheduled meeting of the WGTI, we are of the view that
> in moving towards Cancun, there does not appear to be any
> consensus, let alone an explicit consensus, on how to move
> forward on investment negotiations at the WTO."
> 
> Peter Rossman of the International Union of Foodworkers,
> representing 12 million workers in 142 countries, said that in
> the international labour movement there is a divergence of views
> on the inclusion of an investment agreement at the WTO but a
> consensus exists that the current proposals within the current
> framework at the WTO must be opposed.
> 
> Rossman explained that many global trade unions under the Global
> Unions Group, had taken a joint position that investment
> agreements should exclude provisions on expropriation and
> national treatment as they limit the scope to pursue development
> strategies.  "The current proposals at WTO fall far short.  As
> things stand, we cannot support trade ministers in Cancun giving
> a green light to commencement of negotiations on investment at
> the WTO."
> 
> Goh Chien Yen of the Malaysia-based Third World Network said that
> NGOs around the world have been voicing their demand that
> negotiations on investment not begin in the WTO.  He said that at
> the discussions in the WGTI, it was clear that there has not been
> agreement among the WTO members, nor has the "clarification of
> issues" mandated at Doha been adequately carried out.
> 
> This lack of agreement applies to all the issues, including on
> scope and definition of investment;  whether the
> non-discrimination principle should apply in investment,
> development considerations; and how disputes should be settled.
> 
> Since this is the final meeting of the WGTI before Cancun, it is
> important to recognise that there is a lack of convergence of
> views on these different elements of a potential investment
> agreement and  that insufficient work has been done on the
> implications for developing countries.
> 
> He highlighted a divergence of opinion even on the most crucial
> issues of scope and definition.  Some developed countries have
> been asking for a very broad definition that includes not only
> FDI but also portfolio investment, whereas the developing
> countries have been demanding that the definition be kept narrow.
> Given the experience of developing countries with financial
> instability, a very broad definition of foreign investment could
> lead to financial difficulties in these economies.
> 
> Many countries have questioned whether the WTO is an appropriate
> forum for an investment agreement.  They have argued that the
> application of the WTO principles of  national treatment and MFN
> may be useful for trade in goods, but is inappropriate and should
> not be extended to investment which is a different entity
> altogether.
> 
> He pointed out another area of disagreement:  some countries like
> India, Pakistan, Kenya, and China have proposed that the
> discussions should cover the obligations of foreign investors and
> their  home governments, but this has been rejected by developed
> countries on the basis that this is not part of the clarification
> process.
> 
> Given the present state of disagreements, there is simply no
> basis for a decision to be taken by explicit consensus in  Cancun
> to start negotiations on a prospective investment agreement" Goh
> maintained.
> 
> John Hilary of ActionAid,  the author of "Unlimited Companies",
> said that the report is based on new case studies from a range of
> countries around the world, including Uganda, Haiti, Thailand,
> Mozambique, South Africa, India and Brazil.
> 
> He said foreign investment can be a powerful force for good,
> citing clothing factories in Bangladesh, China, Cambodia and
> Lesotho where investment has created meaningful developmental
> change by providing jobs, particularly for poor women.
> 
> On the other side however, Hilary said, "we are equally struck
> from research around the world of examples where foreign
> investment had not been a force for development or a force for
> good."
> 
> The ActionAid report says that the case studies examined
> demonstrate that foreign investment can also cause great damage
> to the rights and livelihoods of vulnerable communities, for
> example, in Brazil, Uganda, Haiti, Thailand and India.
> 
> In Thailand, a Udon Thani concession to mine potash in a 85,000
> hectare area that was granted to a Canadian-based company Asia
> Pacific Resources has raised fears among villagers and experts
> over the local environment (the mine is expected to generate
> about 20 million tonnes of salt waste) and on the rice crop on
> which 32,000 people depend.
> 
> In Plachimada, in Kerala state, India, a Coca-Cola bottling plant
> was set up in 1998. Coca-Cola's average extraction of 350,000
> litres of water per day from its new deep wells has severely
> depleted the local communities' water table, leaving villagers
> with acute water shortages and environmental contamination, the
> report points out.
> 
> In Brazil, meanwhile, 90% of the corn seed market has been taken
> over by 4 multinationals, with 60% of the market controlled by
> Monsanto alone. Similarly, in its dairy sector, Nestle and
> Parmalat control more than 50% of the market in the late 1990s.
> In Minas Gerais state, prices fell by 50% and 70,000 poor
> producers had to stop supplying the largest companies between
> 1996 and 2002.
> 
> Hilary said that these examples are "on top of what we already
> know of the economic risks of foreign investment particularly
> where you have local producers who are exposed to competition
> from far greater multinationals."
> 
> "At the macroeconomic level, if China is taken out of the
> equation, over half of all foreign investment to developing
> countries is not 'greenfield' investment i.e. most productive new
> plants, but are in the form of mergers and acquisitions."
> 
> "We believe that the multilateral investment agreement that is
> proposed by the EU, Japan, Korea and others threatens developing
> countries, particularly the poorest communities in those
> countries, because it risks having further liberalization of
> investment in the same way we have seen in the damaging case
> studies in the report."
> 
> Hilary highlighted two threats arising from this agreement.
> Firstly, it threatens to open up the sensitive sectors of the
> economy that have been deliberately kept closed such as
> agriculture in Thailand, India and Ethiopia, and particularly in
> terms of food security.
> 
> The second threat comes in areas that are already open to foreign
> investment because the policies that developing countries use to
> maximize the development benefits of investment could well come
> under attack, as has been seen in services liberalisation under
> the GATS.
> 
> Pro-development policies taken by developing countries such as
> joint venture requirements or equity caps on investors coming
> into the country as well as performance requirements can come
> under thereat at the WTO.
> 
> The ActionAid report reiterates that one lesson from the GATS
> negotiations is that developing countries can indeed be
> pressurised to open up new markets to foreign investors, even
> when it is not in their interest to do so.
> 
> Another lesson from the GATS is that even though key WTO members
> may try to protect key development policies by registering them
> as limitations to their liberalization commitments, those
> policies are targeted for removal by other countries in
> negotiations at the WTO.
> 
> Developing countries have had their key development policies
> targeted for removal by other countries in the current round of
> GATS negotiations, including joint venture requirements and
> equity caps in countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and
> Thailand, among others.
> 
> The report also counters the EU claim that an investment
> agreement at the WTO will be in the best interests of developing
> countries.  This claim does not stand up to examination, as the
> proposed agreement will not increase investment flows; the WTO
> principle of non-discrimination or national treatment is not
> development friendly; developing countries will be overburdened
> with another set of complex negotiations on top of the Doha work
> programme; and the proposed agreement does not address the needs
> of poor communities.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Date distributed (ymed): 030629
> Region: Continent-Wide
> Issue Areas: +economy/development+ +US policy focus+
> 
> ************************************************************
> The Africa Action E-Journal is a free information service
> provided by Africa Action, including both original
> commentary and reposted documents. Africa Action provides this
> information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and
> international policies toward Africa that advance economic,
> political and social justice and the full spectrum of
> human rights.
> 
> Documents previously distributed in the e-journal are
> available on the Africa Action website:
> http://www.africaaction.org
> For additional background on this e-journal go to:
> http://www.africaaction.org/e-journal.htm
> To support Africa Action with your contribution go to:
> http://www.africaaction.org/join.htm
> 
> To be added to or dropped from the e-journal subscription list,
> write to [log in to unmask] For more information about
> reposted material, please contact directly the source mentioned
> in the posting.
> 
> Africa Action
> 1634 Eye St. NW, #810, Washington, DC 20006.
> Phone: 202-546-7961. Fax: 202-546-1545.
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> ************************************************************
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~