"Trade Justice"
Whose trade justice? A crucial question, Mr. Lamy.
However, I attribute more importance to the question of "what". Its been 10 years since WTO is operative. I live in India, I am a law student, I did not find things improving as they were supposed to have. TRIPS has been obligated on me, however where is the opening of the Services Market. And there are so many more things, towards achieving the ends of "trade justice". Agricultural Subsidies given by Developed members are still killing markets in Developing and LDC members.
I am keeping my fingers crossed for the success of the HKM, because it would take us a step ahead in liberalisation. However I still am not sure if that would be in any way furthering "trade justice".

regards,
Rishabh Sancheti
5th Year, BBA-LLB
National Law University
India

Estimado Señor Lamy:

Respecto de que entendemos por "comercio justo" es necesario realizar dos aclaraciones.
En primer lugar, debemos entender el "comercio" como cualquier transacción de bienes o servicios, ya sea entre países o entre personas.
En segundo lugar, se entiende por algo "justo" cualquier cosa que sea equitativa para todos, en este sentido, se entendería como algo equitativo para los 149 Miembros que desde ayer tiene la OMC.
En este sentido y dado los muchos temas bajo negociación, no es justo pretender apertura en servicios y bienes no agrícolas, sin pretender apertura en bienes agrícolas.
Es por esto, que por mas que la OMC pregone la cuestión del desarrollo y de las preocupaciones de los PMAs y PEDs, estas pierden todo sentido cuando éstos países se enfrentan a los mercados de los países desarrollados sin ningun tipo de acceso real y efectivo; y esto es lo que ocurre con la agricultura, donde los PEDs y PMAs tienen su fortaleza exportadora.
Entonces se entendería por un comercio justo aquel comercio en donde todos (los PDs, los PEDs y los PMAs) tenemos las mismas posibilidades y los mismos beneficios en las diferentes areas de negociación. Por ejemplo, si los PDs tienen su potencial exportador en bienes industriales y en servicios, y por ende, pretenden la apertura de estos dos sectores; si esto ocurriera es porque esos mismos países han otorgado a los PEDs lo que pretenden en el sector agrícola, esto es mayor acceso a mercados, reducción de las ayudas internas y eliminación de los subsidios a la exportación. Y esto sí sería una forma de "comercio justo"

Por un COMERCIO realemente JUSTO. Exitos en la VI Conferecia Ministerial

"I spot a boat with a big “For when trade justice?” painted on the sails. 

Pascal, I didn't notice that one. I was wondering whether you might be referring to the big blue sail on the Chinese junk that read "When will the poor start getting richer"

Chaim

Hong Kong

Can't agree more that trade requires rules agreed to by all the players, as opposed to a system of power relationships where everyone suffers from the absence of fairness and balance. WTO is about one member, one vote, whether big or small, strong or weak. Surely not perfect but not bad when you compare to other international organizations.

PL

Same boat. Different sail. Same message.

PL

Thank you for taking the time to give advice on what you consider to be the most effective methods of achieving concrete results on the question of the trade of ecosystem services. Circumstances, of course, determine which method, or methods, are the most appropriate.

So what are the circumstances?

Following several decades of warnings about global warming, and warnings about the serious damage being done to the environment, last year the United Nations published the most comprehensive and authoritative global Environmental Assessment report ever made. (UNEP MA)The language of the report was generally very diplomatic, though the message was chilling.

‘..we rely completely on the services it (nature) delivers’ (UNEP MA) Undiplomatically put; Nature is our life support system. Without it we will all die.

‘Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.’ (UNEP MA)Undiplomatically put; Our current situation is unsustainable. If we don’t mend our ways, we will all die.

‘Nearly two thirds of the services provided by nature to humankind are found to be in decline worldwide.’ (UNEP MA)Undiplomatically put; Two thirds of our life support system is not working properly, and its getting worse.

‘Nature’s services is unlikely to be a priority so long as they are perceived to be free and limitless by those using them—effective policies will be those that require natural costs to be taken into account for all economic decisions.’ (UNEP MA) Undiplomatically put; We must make fundamental global alterations to our economic systems, so that the full value of nature’s services are always included.

It would seem that the United Nations, for one reason or another chose to be diplomatic about what is in reality, the starkest, most uncompromising and terrifying message the world has ever had to face. No doubt they felt it was with good reason. No doubt they hoped, or trusted, that the world’s decision makers would listen to sense, and that being blunt would, or could, be counterproductive..

So to date what has this appeal to good sense achieved?

We are all better informed and more aware of the problems, politicians around the world (including the WTO) take global warming and environmental degradation much more seriously, the Kyoto Protocol has survived, there is the EU carbon trading system and ecosystem services are being given value, in pockets, all over the world. Not a bad track record you might say. Unfortunately the scientists have a completely different view. Experts say that even if we meet the Kyoto Protocol targets, and that seems extremely unlikely, these targets are 20 times too little. Yes, that is 20 times too little. We are also informed by the scientists that we are at a tipping point. Once we have passed that tipping point we will have moved into a chaotic phase whose endpoint is unknown, but on which Professor Stephen Hawking , one of the world’s leading physicists, comments

'We could end up like Venus, covered in clouds and with a surface temperature of 400°C ’

So let’s convert the complexity of the messages from the scientists, often couched in diplomatic language which cushions us from the terrifying content. Let’s put them simply and directly so that we can all understand the risk that we are all facing.

Imagine you and your family are on a bus racing straight towards a huge full fuel tank. The driver has said he’s noticed, but he isn’t doing very much. He’s still going straight towards it, and he‘s still going far far too fast. There’s going to be the most horrible accident unless he rams on the brakes now. You and your family, along with everybody else stands to die……..

There are those amongst the passengers, expert drivers, who have calmly and clearly pointed out the danger to the driver, but the driver is still going far far too fast. It’s perfectly clear that if the driver does not ram on the brakes now it could well be too late.

We are all on that bus. Repeatedly, the scientists have informed us, and the driver (he represents the world‘s leaders including Pascal Lamy) of the danger. But the driver seems to be frozen at the steering wheel. Is it a moment for more discreet messages to the driver couched in diplomatic language? It won‘t do any harm, but it would seem extremely unlikely it‘s going to be effective enough in time.

Considering the risk, is it a moment to make the message more direct, and to give it more volume, more passion, to shout even? It may offend some sensibilities, but if the decision makers of the world are in denial, or if they are bewildered or hiding from the facts, or if they are frozen not knowing what to do, don’t we, the passengers, have a responsibility to our families, to ourselves, to life itself, to snap the decision makers out of their stasis?

The challenge of global warming faces all the peoples of the world. It is, at one and the same time, a force that can destroy us all. It is also a force that can unite all of the peoples of the world, and this at a time when the peoples of the world desperately need uniting.

We are facing humanity’s ultimate test. None of us, including Pascal Lamy, chose to be alive at this defining moment. We’re all in a corner together. The sooner we all face that, and recognise the risk assessment, the greater the chance that we will rise to the challenge.

Pascal Lamy has the unenviable task of being the key player. Let’s hope your confidence in his courage is not misplaced. Let’s hope that behind closed doors he is doing everything that is necessary. Let’s hope his silence is precisely because he is using the presentation techniques you espouse, and that they are getting results as speedily as required. But until there is definite evidence of this it is surely our responsibility to do all we reasonably can to ensure the future of our families, ourselves, and life on this earth. And if that means shouting, ‘ram on the brakes’, recognise the free and fair international trade of ecosystem services now, so be it.

Global warming has the power to ‘halt the march of civilisation as we know it….and make the other efforts we’re making irrelevant and impossible…. It is a time when our common humanity is more important than our differences.’ So said former President Clinton just a short time ago on 28/1/2006 at the World Economic forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Let’s pray that your confidence in Pascal Lamy is not misplaced. It is true. It is pure chance that he finds himself where he is at this moment of history. It is pure chance that any of us are alive at this time. The fact is, we are. We must rise to the challenge or perish. He must speak out, he must lead. The WTO must recognise the free and fair international trade of ecosystem services, now.

The terrifying message about global warming is being repeated again and again, loudly and clearly, by scientists from all over the world. You may of course choose to disagree with them, but where the fate of the human race is at stake it is perhaps wise to listen to these experts, and for us all to take a precautionary position.

As regards the relevance of talking to Pascal Lamy, he himself has said, he is like a compass for the WTO. He has the influence to point the WTO in a direction.

It is also surely his duty as Director General to point out to members the obligations they have under existing agreements.

As to your last point, much work has and is being done communicating the seriousness of the situation to member governments, and the necessity of the WTO fulfilling its obligations by recognising the free and fair international trade of ecosystem services.

Thank you, once again.

There’s nothing new about making the messengers suffer because of bad news, the scientists in this case, and then putting pressure on them to produce more ‘favourable’ news.

It goes without saying, of course, that the best hope of making the best decisions is determined by the accuracy and completeness of the information available. Hiding from the facts, or trying to manipulate or confuse the facts, is desperately counterproductive.

In the case of global warming, it could determine whether our world survives or not.

Any delays, however caused, could be fatal to our world. We need action on an appropriate scale, and we really do need it now.

Immediate recognition of the free and fair international trade of ecosystem services by the WTO, is our best hope.