NBF har henvendt seg på nytt til UD om bibliotektjenester, WTO, GATS og den
pågående forhandlingsrunden.

Det heter i NBFs brev:


"Utenriksdepartementet
Handelspolitisk
avdeling                                                                   3.
februar 2004
Postboks 8114 Dep.
0032 Oslo.                                                              .


WTO OG GATS – DEN PÅGÅENDE FORHANDLINGSRUNDEN - BIBLIOTEKTJENESTER

Norsk Bibliotekforening (NBF) henvender seg med dette til
Utenriksdepartementet (UD) med synspunkter på WTO og GATS, den pågående
forhandlingsrunden og bibliotektjenester.

NBF som er en fri og uavhengig landssammenslutning og har til formål å fremme
utviklingen av bibliotek-, dokumentasjons- og informasjonsvirksomhet, viser
til tidligere kontakt med UD gjennom møtet med Handelspolitisk avdeling 26.
mars 2001 samt NBFs brev til UD av 17. oktober 2001 og UDs svar til NBF av 5.
november 2001.

NBF ser meget positivt på at UD i sitt brev understreker at ” Da Norge ble
medlem av WTO i 1995 valgte Norge ikke å føre opp bibliotektjenester i den
norske bindingslisten. Bibliotektjenester er heller ikke omtalt i det norske
forhandlingsforslag som er fremmet under de pågående tjenesteforhandlinger.”

UD peker i sitt brev fra november 2001 på at ” Som Norsk bibliotekforening
nevner hadde 13 land påtatt seg forpliktelser innenfor biblioteksektoren da
GATS-forhandlingene ble innledet. Disse forpliktelsene har stått uendret siden
GATS trådte i kraft i 1995. Ingen av
de nevnte land har tatt opp nye forslag om handel med bibliotektjenester i
de pågående forhandlingene.”

Dette er korrekt. Men det er grunn til å peke på at i løpet av den perioden
som har gått siden 2001 har det skjedd endringer i dette bildet. Nærmere 20
land har nå ført opp bibliotektjenester på sine bindingslister. Dette behøver
ikke nødvendigvis innebære at det fremmes konkrete forslag om handel med
bibliotektjenester i de pågående forhandlinger eller seinere. Men NBF finner
grunn til å informere UD om viktigheten av at våre norske myndigheter med
ansvar på dette området fortsetter å føre den politikk som UD tidligere har
orientert om (”ikke å føre opp bibliotektjenester i den norske
bindingslisten”).

I denne sammenheng ønsker NBF å informere UD om at den europeiske
bibliotekorganisasjonen EBLIDA og den internasjonale bibliotekorganisasjonen
IFLA har hatt et eget møte med WTO om bibliotektjenester sett i sammenheng med
GATS-regelverket.
Et referat fra møtet vedlegges.

Videre ønsker NBF å informere UD om to uttalelser som EBLIDA har avgitt. Dette
er en generell uttalelse om de pågående forhandlingene fra november 2002 og en
annen uttalelse fra  begynnelsen av 2003 til EU-kommisjonen om
bibliotektjenester i samband med offentlig høring om handel med tjenester i en
WTO-sammenheng (EBLIDA response to the EC consultation on WTO members’
requests to the EC and its member states for improved market access to
services January 2003). Uttalelsene følger som vedlegg.

NBF ønsker å presisere at det må være størst mulig grad av åpenhet om
forhandlingene, at den norske posisjon på ulike områder må drøftes i full
åpenhet og at NBF ønsker å bli involvert i enhver sammenheng hvor spørsmål av
relevans for NBFs arbeidsfelt blir berørt.


Med vennlig hilsen


Frode Bakken
Leder

Tore Kr. Andersen
generalsekretær


Kopi:
Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet, Universitets- og høgskoleavdelinga
Kultur-og kirkedepartementet
Universitets- og høgskolerådet
ABM-utvikling
Kommunenes sentralforbund”



Vedleggene er som følger:

” The IFLA/EBLIDA talks with the World Trade Organization and the European
Commission about GATS and libraries, 18 December 2002 – report to the
Executive Committee of EBLIDA

By Kjell Nilsson, 2003-08-18

On the 18th of December last year, a joint delegation from IFLA and EBLIDA
visited Geneva to meet separately with representatives of the WTO and of the
European Commission’s delegation to the WTO.

The visitors were:

· Frode Bakken, president of the Norwegian Library Association and the
then chairman of the EBLIDA working group on WTO-related matters
· Teresa Hackett, the then Director of EBLIDA
· Ross Shimmon, Secretary General of IFLA, and
· Myself, member of the IFLA/CLM working group on WTO-related matters
and the current chairman of the EBLIDA working group

The purpose of the trip was to have discussions with WTO and EC officials
about the potential impact of GATS on publicly funded libraries. It was more
of a fact-finding mission than a lobbying one. We had quite a few questions on
our list, and several people contributed to that list.


WTO
At the WTO headquarters we met with:

· Dale Honeck, GATS counsellor for Culture
· Pierre Latrille, GATS counsellor for Education, and
· Martin Roy, Economic Affairs Officer of the GATS secretariat

The two most fundamental questions we raised with the WTO people were:

· Are the services of publicly funded libraries included in the scope of
GATS, or should they be regarded as “supplied in the exercise of governmental
authority” (article 1:3 C) and therefore by definition be excluded from the
treaty?
· Are there any sectors in the treaty, except sub-sector 10
C: “Libraries, archives, and museums” and sector 5: “Educational services”,
that involve library services? (For instance, where do you place library
services provided online?)

We had a very open-minded conversation that stretched far beyond the scheduled
two hours, but the answers we received were not very clarifying. The
counsellors seemed fairly uncertain about their interpretations of the treaty
and they also disagreed between themselves on some of them.
Nevertheless, our conclusions were that:

· The services of publicly funded libraries are definitely within the
scope of the GATS agreement; only services supplied by public monopolies fall
outside.
· Online library services might, if we are unlucky, go into sector 2
B: “Computer and related services”, a sector which has in fact already been
committed by the European Union.

To be honest, it has to be said that the UN classification scheme (CPC), which
forms the basis of the GATS treaty, places “information retrieval from
databases” among “Library services” (96311), but my guess is it will not stay
there for much longer. The UN scheme is 15 years old, it is already being
supplemented by the WTO Services Sectoral Classification List (“W/120”), and
clearly online information retrieval services cannot logically be restricted
to libraries. Actually, in this field, publicly funded libraries are being
consistently challenged by private companies.


European Commission
At the EC delegation we met with Ann Mary Redmond, who is one of the EC
officials involved in the GATS negotiations.

Our purpose in meeting with her was primarily to find out more about the
relationship between the EC and the member states in these negotiations.

What we found out was essentially that:

· The European Commission collectively makes the requests and offers on
behalf of the member states.
· The discussions around GATS take place in the “Article 133 committee”
in which officials from the national trade ministries meet regularly
(approximately every two weeks).
· Should it be impossible to reach consensus, the individual member
states can derogate from the line of the EC. However, this will probably not
stay that way for long. The so-called Nice Treaty opens up for majority voting
on trade issues.


Current status of the GATS negotiations
Following the WTO meeting in Qatar in November 2001 a request/offer process
was initiated in the GATS negotiations. Requests should have been made by the
end of June 2002, offers by the end of March 2003. Until now, most of the
member states have done neither. The EC has done both.

The EC has presented the requests made to and offers made by the European
Union, and prior to making its offers it opened the floor to comments. The
EBLIDA response, basically urging the EC not to commit sub-sector 10 C, was
published on 9 January this year. And, in fact, the EC did not make any
requests or offers pertaining to 10 C. However, Austria, before joining the
European Union, for some strange reason committed this sector with no
restrictions at all.

Because of the unexpectedly slow process it is very unlikely that the upcoming
WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico, 10-14 September 2003, will entail any decisions
on GATS offers. That is not at all to say we should not attentively and
continuously observe what is happening in the negotiations.

Conclusions
A lasting impression from our talks in Geneva is that a complex international
treaty like GATS gives room for different interpretations. Also, it is a live
organism, the wording of which might be subject to many changes during its
lifetime.

Although some 20 countries already committed sub-sector 10 C, it is fair to
say that library services has not been one of the most targeted areas in the
GATS negotiations. Nevertheless, librarians will have watch out.

There are several issues which need particular attention, e.g.:

1. “Educational services” (which is certainly one of the most attractive
targets, and which, in many countries, includes a substantial part of the
publicly funded libraries).

A commitment has already been made by the EC for “privately funded services”.
Obviously, if the publicly funded ones are to remain untouched, libraries will
not be the most important argument. But we can note with satisfaction that
large national and international university associations have issued
statements against any plans to commit publicly funded universities. And of
course we should give our support to such resistance, guided by our overriding
goal of open access to information.

There seems to be some uncertainty around the funding issue. For instance,
many publicly funded universities offer fee-based courses for private
companies.

A WTO book on GATS and education is expected before the end of this
year.

2. Online library services.

As I indicated above, I do not think that fighting this battle on the
classification field is a very good idea in the long run. Better then to fall
back on the existing horizontal limitation to the national treatment principle
inscribed in the EC’s schedule of specific commitments, stating as regards
commercial presence (mode 3) that:

· “the EC has reserved its right to supply, or subsidize, a service
within the public sector without breaching its national treatment
commitments.”

The EC has a working group looking at the issues concerning electronic
services.


The ones who should watch out are primarily the national library associations,
which should get in touch with their government trade officials and articulate
their concerns. On the international level I am confident organizations like
EBLIDA and IFLA will continue to support the cause of publicly funded, openly
accessible libraries.

To do that in an adequate way we have to analyze, raise awareness, and
advocate. Of course, this is not something that should be done successively,
one thing after the other. On the contrary, we have to work in parallel on all
of it. At the moment, awareness raising seems to be the most urgent task. On
the library side there are simply too few people who are knowledgeable on this
subject.

Partly for that very reason, it is extremely important that we cooperate
internationally, in and outside Europe. “


Og

http://www.nb.no/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=BIBLIOTEKNORGE&P=R15165

og

http://www.nb.no/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0111&L=BIBLIOTEKNORGE&P=R9556

og

http://www.eblida.org/position/GATS_Statement_Nov02.htm

og

http://www.eblida.org/position/GATS_Response_Jan03.htm