•  geneva
• Monday, April 11, 2011
• Inter Press Service

'IBSA what?' is the question you most often get in Geneva when enquiring about the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) dialogue forum, established in 2003 between these three multicultural democracies and emerging markets 'to contribute to the construction of a new international architecture'.

IBSA is not an issue in the capital of world trade, Geneva, despite the rhetoric of its Mar. 8 meeting in New Delhi, India, where the three delegations reaffirmed their commitment to 'an open, transparent and rule-based international trading regime'. They also called for an 'early conclusion of the Doha Development Round with a balanced outcome which ensures the development needs of the developing countries, especially the least developed countries'.

A trade diplomat from one of the IBSA countries at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), speaking to IPS on condition of anonymity, says, 'we don’t coordinate our actions formally as a group. We hold common membership in various coalitions, so we coordinate on an ad hoc basis.'

He explains that Brazil, South Africa, India and China are members of the Group of 20 (G20) in agriculture; of the NAMA-11 group in the non- agricultural market access (NAMA) negotiations; and that they share most positions on intellectual property.

The G20 is a coalition of developing countries but their interests in agriculture may diverge. Brazil, for example, tends to take the offence, while India adopts a defensive position, pushing for a strong special safeguard mechanism that allows developing countries to increase tariffs in the case of import surges or sudden drops in world prices.

The NAMA-11 is a group of emerging market states that asks for flexibilities in the implementation of tariff reductions and for greater market access in industrial goods. 'But, even though the interests of Brazil and India in agriculture may seem divergent, in practice they have been able to find a middle ground with regard to market access, the reduction of trade-distorting domestic support and the elimination of export subsidies,' the trade diplomat points out.

Christophe Bellmann, programmes director at the Geneva-based International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), explains, 'the March Delhi statement is mainly in response to U.S. pressures on sectoral initiatives in the NAMA negotiations.' ICTSD is an independent non-governmental organisation based in Geneva.

Currently, the main divergences in the WTO Doha Round negotiations stem from the U.S. request to large emerging markets to deeply cut or even completely slash tariffs in entire industrial sectors, like chemicals, industrial machinery, electronics and forestry.

Brazil, China and India responded that these initiatives are supposed to be voluntary and must remain so. For Brazil, these sectors represent one third of all its industrial products and, for China, more than 55 percent of all its NAMA imports.

These deep differences have brought Pascal Lamy, WTO director general, to acknowledge last week that the Doha Round 'may fail.' For Bellmann, alliances are 'not political or ideological,' but based on commercial interests and therefore very volatile, with the exception of the African group that works more along a regional line. 'Countries don’t think as a group, but in a strategic way, for example, how to increase their weight in negotiations by building alliances, ideally with big countries like China, India and Brazil,' he told IPS.

© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service