NAMA contains proposals that would severely curtail governments’ ability to implement domestic policies in the public interest, including policies designed to support smaller and weaker producers in the countries of the South. It would also see those countries with the highest tariffs (that is, the great majority of developing countries) making the largest cuts and greatest commitments, even though this could weaken key industries and sectors in those countries. Add to this the fact that the WTO effectively ‘locks’ countries into these trade agreements and it is clear that NAMA poses a major threat to those countries already struggling to develop their economies and deal with unsustainable and unjust external debt burdens.

We, the undersigned organisations, are united in our opposition to this new attempt to lever open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of smaller companies and producers, local economies, cultures and the environment. The NAMA proposals must be halted and a comprehensive review undertaken of NAMA’s potential social, developmental, environmental, employment and gender impacts.

We therefore call on governments to:

a.. Halt the NAMA negotiations and agree to a full and independent review of NAMA’s potential impacts on economic development, industrial diversification in developing countries, the environment and social welfare (including employment, health and gender balance);

a.. Recognise and guarantee governments’ domestic policy space and flexibilities, preserving their right to use policy tools including trade measures, that develop fair and sustainable economies, protect and promote employment, social welfare, health and the environment and guarantee public participation.

a.. Promote resource conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources including by stopping the further liberalisation of trade in natural resources such as forests, fish, oils, gas, metals and minerals.
==============================================================

The effects of NAMA on developing country industries and unemployment

a.. The rapid and comprehensive reduction in import tariffs and other trade measures proposed in NAMA threatens to undercut developing countries’
ability to industrialise. They would not be able to protect vulnerable local businesses from large and well-established overseas corporations that are able to mass-produce large quantities of cheap products (trade measures were used extensively by industrialised countries when their own domestic industries needed such support in order to develop).

a.. The closure of local industries and small workshops under pressure from cheaper imports would lead to increased unemployment. Trade liberalisation has already had disastrous impacts on employment in countries in Africa and Asia, under IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programs, and in some Latin American countries.

a.. Deindustrialization combined with the proposed liberalization of natural resources under NAMA (which is planned to include fisheries, forestry and mineral resources) could also push countries into increasing dependence on commodity exports that generate relatively small returns, rather than diversifying their economies. Any further pressure on fisheries would be particularly damaging, leading to increasing rates of unemployment, poverty and malnutrition for the many millions dependent on the world’s marine resources for their livelihoods and food.

a.. Developing countries would also lose the income they currently receive from trade tariffs (customs duties). This is critical, since many such governments depend heavily on such revenues to sustain essential social services.

a.. NAMA would also push developing countries into a situation in which they import more, yet export less as a result of de-industrialization, creating growing trade deficits and deteriorating external balance of payments for developing countries.

Increased exploitation of natural resources

The NAMA negotiations pose a broad and significant threat to the environment with most countries ignoring the potential environmental and social impacts of liberalising trade in raw materials. All natural resources are included in the NAMA negotiations and sectors such as fish, gold, diamonds and primary aluminium have even been proposed for complete liberalisation.

a.. Increased liberalisation in raw materials sectors could lead to increased exploitation of and trade in scarce natural resources and remove governments’ ability to use trade measures to manage stocks sustainably and for the common good.

a.. A NAMA deal could limit governments’ use of tariff and other trade measures to preserve the livelihoods of millions of fisherfolk around the world and ensure that people in developing countries can still rely on fish as a key source of protein.

a.. There would be less scope for governments to use trade measures to protect endangered fish populations. At the same time, trade liberalisation could further strengthen industries engaged in fish processing and aquaculture, with little regard for their impacts on human rights and the pollution of coastal environments.

Threats to national laws and policy space

Many governments are using NAMA and other WTO negotiations to target legitimate non-commercial laws around the world which protect the environment, social well-being and health. They argue that these so-called “barriers to trade” obstruct transnational companies’ exports in one way or another. Laws covering food and medicines, fisheries, timber and petroleum, energy efficiency, chemical testing, recycling and standards in the electronics and automobile industries have all been listed as part of the NAMA negotiations, seemingly at the direct behest of those corporations likely to benefit from their removal. This concerted attack on regulation ignores the need to use regulations to protect and promote the health and well-being of citizens, conserve natural resources and stop climate change.

Conclusion

The NAMA negotiations are taking place at a speed that prevents less well-resourced governments from participating properly in the negotiations, let alone conducting assessments of the potential impact of a new NAMA agreement on their economies, workers and environment. Although the Least Developed Countries have some limited exemptions in this round of negotiations, this is not enough to safeguard their future development.

In fact, what is being pushed is the exact opposite of the “development”
deal sold to developing countries at the WTO’s Doha Ministerial in 2001. At that meeting developing countries were promised that they would not have to offer up as much as the richer countries. But in NAMA they are now being required to make greater "adjustments" than the highly industrialised countries and take far greater risks with their current production and future development prospects. Trade ministers of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Countries have already clearly stated that they are “concerned that the proposals contained in the Derbez text and its annex on NAMA [negotiating texts] … would further deepen the crisis of de-industrialisation and accentuate the unemployment and poverty crisis in our countries”. However, despite this unambiguous expression of concern, their views have been blatantly ignored by industrialised countries and those responsible for driving these radical proposals forward. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. We therefore call on governments
to:

a.. Halt the NAMA negotiations and agree to a full and independent review of NAMA’s potential impacts on economic development, industrial diversification in developing countries, the environment and social welfare (including employment, health and gender balance);

a.. Recognise and guarantee governments’ domestic policy space and flexibilities, preserving their right to use policy tools including trade measures, that develop fair and sustainable economies, protect and promote employment, social welfare, health and the environment and guarantee public participation.

a.. Promote resource conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources including by stopping the further liberalisation of trade in natural resources such as forests, fish, oils, gas, metals and minerals.