Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07STATE131348
2007-09-18 19:08:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

DEMARCHE REQUEST ON WTO DOHA INDUSTRIAL GOODS

Tags:  ECON ETRD WTRO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0002
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #1348 2611923
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 181908Z SEP 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHBE/AMEMBASSY BELMOPAN PRIORITY 0000
RUEHWN/AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN PRIORITY 0000
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ SEP 0000
RUEHDG/AMEMBASSY SANTO DOMINGO PRIORITY 0000
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO PRIORITY 0000
RUEHSN/AMEMBASSY SAN SALVADOR PRIORITY 0000
RUEHGE/AMEMBASSY GEORGETOWN PRIORITY 0000
RUEHGT/AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHTG/AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHKG/AMEMBASSY KINGSTON PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMU/AMEMBASSY MANAGUA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHZP/AMEMBASSY PANAMA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION PRIORITY 0000
RUEHSP/AMEMBASSY PORT OF SPAIN PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO PRIORITY 0000
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0000
UNCLAS STATE 131348 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
BRIDGETOWN FOR BARBADOS AND GRENADA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON ETRD WTRO
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE REQUEST ON WTO DOHA INDUSTRIAL GOODS
TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS


SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY

UNCLAS STATE 131348

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
BRIDGETOWN FOR BARBADOS AND GRENADA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON ETRD WTRO
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE REQUEST ON WTO DOHA INDUSTRIAL GOODS
TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS


SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY


1. (U) This is an action request. Please see paragraph 8.


2. (U) Summary and action request: WTO Doha Round
negotiations on potential approaches for global reductions on
industrial goods tariffs (known as Non-Agricultural Market
Access or NAMA) resumed in Geneva September 17 with informal
meetings taking place the week of September 10. Action
addressee host countries make up part of a group of
developing countries within the WTO negotiations known as
small, vulnerable economies (SVEs),which are defined in the
NAMA negotiations as countries with less than .01 percent of
global non-agricultural goods trade. Within the NAMA
negotiations, these countries would be granted a
specially-tailored solution, yet to be finalized,
commensurate with their SVE status. Small, vulnerable
economies are defined separately in the WTO Agriculture
negotiations and will be granted a special solution in that
context, as well. Posts are requested to demarche host
country trade ministries at the highest appropriate level to
convey U.S. views on the specific commitments host countries
are being asked to undertake in the NAMA negotiations only
and to encourage them to pursue an ambitious result for the
Round. End summary and action request.


3. (U) Background: After the G4 (Brazil, the European
Communities, India and the United States) did not reach
agreement on the basic outlines of a Doha package in June
2007, negotiations returned back to a WTO Members-led process
in Geneva. In mid-July, the chairmen of the agriculture and
NAMA negotiating groups issued papers detailing their
proposals for a potential framework for modalities. (The
NAMA paper is available at www.wto.org, under recent
documents, JOB(07)/126.) In subsequent meetings on the NAMA
Chair's paper in late July, most WTO Members supported the
paper as a starting point from which to build further when
negotiations resume in September, but several Members
(Argentina, Bolivia, South Africa and Venezuela) came close
to rejecting the text, mainly because of the requirements
that it would impose on developing countries, including the
small, vulnerable economies. However, in the paper, the
Chairman proposed a special solution for the countries

meeting the SVE definition. In the Americas/Caribbean
region, these countries include: Antigua and Barbuda,
Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras,
Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, St. Vincent and
Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Trinidad and
Tobago and Uruguay.


4. (U) In the NAMA negotiations approximately 30 developing
countries globally will apply the tariff cutting "Swiss"
formula through the use of a developing country coefficient.
(Note: Under the Swiss formula, the "coefficient" becomes the
highest bound tariff. For example, under a "Swiss 19," no
bound tariff after full implementation of tariff reduction
commitments would be higher than 19 percent. End note.)


5. (SBU) Under the Chairman's proposal, the small,
vulnerable economies would be exempt from undertaking the
much larger commitment -- applying the developing country
tariff reduction formula (the so-called Swiss formula above)
-- which would require much deeper cuts to their tariffs.
U.S. interests in these markets are limited, especially in
the Latin American and Caribbean regions where much of our
trade is covered by free trade agreements (FTAs). Therefore,
the United States has been supportive of special treatment
for SVEs in the hopes that: (1) the SVEs' defensive concerns
would be addressed; (2) that the SVEs could then focus on
their own offensive interests, and (3) that the SVEs, as a
result, could support ambitious tariff cuts (through a low
formula coefficient) for other, more advanced developing
countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and
Venezuela.


6. (SBU) The specific solution proposed by the NAMA chairman
for the small, vulnerable economies is to reduce their bound
tariffs to one of three target averages (14, 18 or 22
percent),based on the level of their current average bound
tariff rates (the outer boundary of where they could legally
raise their tariffs to). The Chair's SVE proposal also
contains other elements, such as a requirement that 95
percent of bound tariff lines must be subject to at least a
10 percent tariff cut. The SVEs themselves had been the
proponents of a three-band type solution with targeted
averages to account for the vast differences among their
economies (some being quite wealthy as a result of services -
mainly tourism - income). However, many of them are likely
to complain that the 14, 18 and 22 target averages are too
low and burdensome for their economies and that the 10
percent cut will present difficulties. In reality, the vast
majority of them will not make cuts to the tariffs that they
actively apply (i.e., their applied tariffs),just to their
bound tariffs. Panama and Ecuador are slight exceptions to
this -- according to USG calculations the SVE proposal will
cut into their applied rates on seven and four percent of
their non-agricultural tariff lines respectively. The
countries that will end up making large reductions to their
bound tariffs under the proposal are the Caribbean countries.
This is because they currently have very high starting
points, with tariffs bound in the 50 to 70 percent bound
range, and would have to bring these tariffs to an average of
22 percent. However, because these countries' applied
tariffs are much lower than their bound tariffs, even the
Caribbean countries do not have to make any changes to
applied tariff rates.


7. (U) The new average bound tariffs that will be required
for individual SVE countries in the Americas is as follows:
22 percent: Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Trinidad/Tobago; 18
percent: Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Paraguay and
Uruguay; and 14 percent: Ecuador and Panama. End background.


8. (U) Action Request: Post is requested to meet at the
highest practical level in trade ministries to convey the
talking points below. Some Geneva-based representatives of
the SVEs argue that the solutions in the text are too onerous
for their countries. In July, some of the SVEs did not have
the chance to do in-depth analysis to see what the proposal
would actually mean for all of their tariff lines and may
have spent the August break at the WTO doing this analysis or
consulting further at home. Insights into the current views
of capital-based representatives on the SVE proposal,
including specific problems that it may present, and views on
the overall NAMA negotiations are sought. Posts are advised
that it is acceptable and even recommended to leave the
points below with host country as a non-paper. If Posts have
questions about this demarche, please contact USTR/Director
of Tariff Affairs Cara Morrow via email at:
cara morrow@ustr.eop.gov.

Begin talking points:

-- Appreciate your country's ongoing support for the Doha
Round negotiations, which have the potential to significantly
open markets and increase global trade.

-- Regarding the non-agricultural market access (NAMA)
negotiations, we encourage support for an ambitious outcome
on the tariff cuts that the advanced developing countries
will make. As a trading partner of those countries, your
country would benefit from a lower coefficient for them.

-- A special solution for small, vulnerable economies (SVEs)
has been put forward by the NAMA Chairman that adopts many of
the proposals that the SVEs themselves suggested, such as
three bands with different average target bound rates. This
distinguishes SVEs from those developing countries - some of
which are your neighbors - that have to apply the tariff
reduction formula. You not having to apply the formula is an
important concession.

-- Use of an average target bound rate (as opposed to the
line-by-line tariff reduction requirement in the formula)
allows your country to make adjustments to account for
product sensitivities. This is a major flexibility afforded
to reflect the specific concern that, given their limited
administrative and industrial capacity, small, vulnerable
economies are not in a position to liberalize as deeply as
the larger, advanced developing economies, such as Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, etc.

-- Flexibility is also provided by excluding 5 percent of
tariff lines from the 10 percent minimum cut in each bound
rate line. There is no trade cap on this exemption, so this
is more generous than the flexibilities available to the
advanced developing countries. We have not heard any
product-specific problems with this requirement. Are there
specific products that would be a problem?

-- We encourage support your support for working with the
Chair's text, including the small, vulnerable economies
proposal, as a basis for further negotiations in September.
We want to understand details of any concerns you have about
the SVE proposal.

-- (If raised: Difficulties in lowering tariffs to the ranges
proposed by the Chair): Averages provide you with
flexibility to shield sensitivities. As small, vulnerable
economies, you also have narrow import and export bases, so
there are limited tariff lines where you trade, which gives
you further ability to shield sensitive areas with the
current flexibilities, as well as tariff lines important for
government revenue (such as vehicles).

-- (For Barbados): Barbados' average bound tariff is 76.1
percent and average applied tariff is 12.5 percent.
According to our calculations, reaching a target average of
22 percent under the Chair's proposal can be done with no
changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Barbados): In terms of specific products, are fish
and jewelry for tourists a problem?

-- (For Belize): Belize's average bound tariff is 51.8
percent and average applied tariff is 9.8 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 22 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Bolivia): Bolivia's average bound tariff is 40.0
percent and average applied tariff is 7.9 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 22 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Dominican Republic): The Dominican Republic's average
bound tariff is 34.1 percent and average applied tariff is
7.9 percent. According to our calculations, reaching a
target average of 22 percent for bound tariffs under the
Chair's proposal can be done with no changes to your applied
tariffs.

-- (For Ecuador): Ecuador's average bound tariff is 20.9
percent and average applied tariff is 11.0 percent. Reaching
a target average of 14 percent for bound tariffs under the
Chair's proposal can be done with minimal changes to your
applied tariffs and likely no change to your average applied
rate. With the five percent exclusion from line-by-line cuts
taken into account, we calculate that only 4 percent of
Ecuador's tariff lines would have to sustain applied tariff
cuts under this proposal;

-- (For Grenada): Grenada's average bound tariff is 50.0
percent and average applied tariff is 10.2 percent.
According to our calculations, reaching a target average of
22 percent for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can
likely be done with no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Guatemala): Guatemala's average bound tariff is 41.0
percent and average applied tariff is 5.3 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 18 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Guyana): Guyana's average bound tariff is 50.0
percent and average applied tariff is 10.3 percent.
According to our calculations, reaching a target average of
22 percent for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can
be done with no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Honduras): Honduras' average bound tariff is 32.4
percent and average applied tariff is 5.2 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 18 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Jamaica): Jamaica's average bound tariff is 43.3
percent and average applied tariff is 6.6 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 18 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Nicaragua): Nicaragua's average bound tariff is 41.4
percent and average applied tariff is 4.8 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 18 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Panama): Panama's average bound tariff is 22.6
percent and average applied tariff is 7.2 percent. Reaching
a target average of 14 percent for bound tariffs under the
Chair's proposal can be done with minimal changes to your
applied tariffs and likely no change to your average applied
rate. With the five percent exclusion from line-by-line cuts
taken into account, we calculate that only 7 percent of
Panama's tariff lines would have to sustain applied tariff
cuts under this proposal.

-- (For Paraguay): Paraguay's average bound tariff is 32.3
percent and average applied tariff is 8.7 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 18 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

-- (For Trinidad and Tobago): Trinidad and Tobago's average
bound tariff is 50.8 percent and average applied tariff is
7.5 percent. According to our calculations, reaching a
target average of 22 percent for bound tariffs under the
Chair's proposal can be done with no changes to your applied
tariffs.

-- (For Uruguay) Uruguay's average bound tariff is 30.1
percent and average applied tariff is 9.4 percent. According
to our calculations, reaching a target average of 18 percent
for bound tariffs under the Chair's proposal can be done with
no changes to your applied tariffs.

End talking points.


6. (U) Please slug responses for USTR Washington (CMorrow),
Geneva (LMolnar),USDOC (JJanicke and EDunn),State
(AScheibe),and Treasury (WSchall). Post's efforts are
appreciated.
RICE