As World Trade Organization members struggle to advance outcomes for the 13th ministerial conference scheduled to take place in two months, the General Council met last week for three days of intensive discussions.
A meeting of the WTO’s Doha Trade Negotiations Committee on Tuesday seems to have exposed the fault lines and conflicting narratives on what needs to be accomplished at the 13th ministerial.
The conflicting narratives and goals on fisheries subsidies, agriculture, dispute settlement system reform and issues concerning development among others, may not augur well any likely concrete outcome at the MC13, said several people preferring not to be quoted.
At the TNC, Doha Agriculture Negotiation Chair Alparsian Acarsoy of Turkey said he had to cancel his consultations with members after a one particularly hostile meeting with the representative of an unnamed member country.
WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who is also the chair of the TNC, expressed concern over “very sobering report” issued by Ambassador Acarsoy, saying that “he has done his best to try and find common ground. Yet divergences continue to be deep. But they are not only deep. Sometimes they feel bitter – and I was sad to hear what he had to say.”
Nevertheless, the DG said, Ambassador Acarsoy vowed “that he will move on and he is urging Members to try and help him now build up what they want to see at MC13.”
The DG also expressed disappointment about the lack of progress in Doha services negotiations adding that “this organization cannot make significant advances on an issue so critical to the present and future of trade, and of trade-led growth, development, and job creation.”
In her introductory statement, Ms. Okonjo-Iweala said, “We know people are bearing the brunt of slow growth, volatile prices, climate impacts and debt pressures. We have a responsibility to contribute to efforts to reinvigorate growth and opportunities for people everywhere.”
According to a statement, she said “we must have a substantive and meaningful Ministerial with concrete results. It is welcome that stakeholders increasingly understand that trade is part of the solution for many contemporary global challenges we are facing. But we still have the onus on us here in Geneva to deliver.”
However, the reports presented by the chairs of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations and Doha development issues indicated there is modest progress and widening differences in these and other areas, said people familiar with the discussions.
The clash of narratives among members on agriculture seemed stark on issues as well as results to be achieved at the MC13.
On agriculture, the Africa Group said, “in the context of the persistent state of global food insecurity that has a disproportionate impact on developing economies, including on the African Continent,” the MC13 must “produce a credible outcome that effectively responds to its structural causes.”
The Africa Group bemoaned that “food and livelihood insecurity situation continue to deteriorate because our farmers are unable to compete in international markets as well as in our own domestic markets in the face of highly subsidized products and our economy continue to face the brunt of an uneven playing filed in global agricultural trade.”
The Africa Group wants an “MC-13 outcome that include substantive food security and livelihoods package that would address trade distorting domestic support, especially with regards to leveling the playing field, PSH, SSM and Cotton.”
Brazil, which in the past led the G20 group of developing countries and is now at the forefront of the Latin American Group and the Cairns Group of farm exporting countries, said “The success of the MC13 as a Reform Ministerial hinges on a successful outcome in Agriculture.”
According to Brazil, the MC13 should “set parameters and give clear political instructions for all members of a package in Agriculture,” and conclude “modalities in agriculture by MC14.”
As for the MC13 Outcome Document, which is still in the making and lacking clarity, Brazil says “It must mention the decision reached in agriculture to pursue a holistic /inclusive package for the reform, in accordance with Article 20 of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture and other relevant mandates, as the best approach to conclude full modalities by MC 14( that would be held in 2026).”
In sharp contrast to Brazil’s asks in agriculture, Indonesia, the coordinator of a more than 40-member group, emphasized that the MC13 should deliver on the mandated issues in agriculture like the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security and special safeguard mechanism for developing countries.
Indonesia says it is disappointed over lack of progress, as “members continued to differ on fundamental issues.”
The G33 coordinator said “we all have our mandates, and the pressure is increasing for us to deliver – but to move forward, we need more give-and-take.” It urged “all members to first work on rectifying the existing imbalances in the AoA – including providing DCs (developing countries) and LDCs with adequate policy space to address urgent challenges, such as food security.” Indonesia underscored the need to use “the next six weeks to intensify discussion among members, continue exploring possible convergence, and recommit ourselves to make meaningful progress.”
India, another key G33 member, said it would judge the MC13 whether it delivers on the mandated issues concerning the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security and the SSM, hinting that the PSH issue could make-or-break the MC13, said people familiar with the developments.
China emphasized the need for respecting all the mandates, adding that “all members’ concerns should be taken into account and all the issues should be on the table.”
The European Union, which is known for its farm defensive policies, said: “it is time to find some realistic convergence on a way forward on agriculture reform, in particular by addressing trade-distorting domestic support and making progress towards a permanent solution to public stockholding for food security purposes (PSH).”
At the MC 13, the EU wants deliverables “on the immediate needs of vulnerable members, who are impacted by the current food insecurity context.”
The United States appears to have expressed disappointment because of the continued entrenched positions, suggesting that time is running short and lots of work remains to be done, said people familiar with the discussions.
At the recent mini-ministerial meeting on agriculture held last month, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai reiterated that “old WTO members particularly those with large roles in agricultural trade, and with significant potential to distort trade must be willing to come to the table to say not only what they want, but also what they are willing to contribute.”
The United States, which is averse to any changes in the fixed external reference price of 1986-88 or delivering on mandated issues like PSH, said it “remains willing to contribute to market access, domestic support, and all aspects of agricultural negotiation,” at the mini-ministerial meeting.
The chair for the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland appears to have delivered a mixed statement on the conclusion of the eighth fish week of negotiations for crafting disciplines for prohibiting overcapacity and overfishing subsidies, said people familiar with the developments.
Though the fisheries chair is yet to circulate his detailed statement on progress or lack of it at the eighth fish week, members expressed sharp concerns at the TNC meeting.
The Africa Group said “the OCOF pillar with effective and appropriate SDT is a cardinal element.” It maintained that “the most harmful subsidies should be identified and disciplined, should be prohibited beyond the EEZs and the disciplines must not contain loopholes that enable the large subsidizers to continue their subsidies regimes.”
The five biggest subsidizers in OC&OF are China, the European Union, the United States, Japan and Korea.
Cameroon, on behalf of the Africa Group, pressed for “a tiered approach” that “is appropriate and will uphold the principles of Common but differentiated responsibilities.”
It added that “mere notifications should not be the only form of discipline to the largest subsidizers,” stressing that “the fish stocks should actually be maintained at a sustainable level and this information should be adequately notified among others, in accordance with the rules.”
On special and differential treatment provisions for developing and least-developed countries that did not cause the depletion of global fish stocks through OC&OF subsidies, the Africa Group said “SDT should take into account the various needs of developing countries and therefore should include the capping approach.”
Indonesia said the chair’s latest text “is not balanced yet”, arguing that “pursuing equal burden-sharing to address overcapacity and overfishing is not appropriate given the existing circumstances.” It wants members to “target those who were historically responsible in depleting global fish stocks, through commercial distant water fishing ventures – and give them more responsibilities to adjust their behaviors.”
The European Union, which is one of the biggest subsidizers, expressed sharp concern saying “the positions in the negotiations are growing further apart.” The EU said “to change the dynamic and deliver an agreement by MC 13 members need to reflect on what they can live with rather push for long menus of nice-to-haves.” The EU expressed confidence in the Chair guiding this process, “including focusing on the core discipline and the sustainability standard.”
The prospects for a credible outcome on the dispute settlement reform look extremely bleak at the MC13, as the latest draft “ministerial decision on dispute settlement” issued by the facilitator from Guatemala conducing the informal discussions seems to be overly biased in favor of a major industrialized country, said people familiar with the discussions.
According to paragraph four of the MC12 Outcome Document, trade ministers acknowledged “the challenges and concerns with respect to the dispute settlement system including those related to the Appellate Body, recognize the importance and urgency of addressing those challenges and concerns, and commit to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.”
Yet, the latest draft ministerial decision is far from addressing the core issues while seemingly engaging in changing the two-tier dispute settlement system once and for all, said several members who asked not to be quoted.
China said dispute settlement reform “is the top priority of most members and the WTO itself.” “In order to deliver outcome at MC13, in the next 2 months, we need to address the remaining issues based on the already-good draft and figure out the solution to the most difficult one, like appeal review mechanism.”
The EU said that “a fully functioning dispute settlement system remains our top priority for MC13.” It added that “in the six remaining weeks, we need to intensify the discussions” as it is critical “to find a solution that preserves the right to appeal.”
The Africa Group called for “restoring the two-tier system with the right to automatic appeal; ensuring accessibility and equitable participation.” It called “for a multilateral process with a clear roadmap towards achieving these objectives,” and demanded “a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system” accessible to all Members by 2024, as mandated by Ministers.
On pending mandated issues on development, particularly the ten agreement-specific proposals by the G90 countries, the Africa Group expressed sharp concern.
At the TNC meeting, the chair of the Doha development issues, Ambassador Kadri Hassan of Djibouti stressed the importance of S&DT issues, but offered a mixed picture of the progress of S&DT issues.
The Africa Group stressed the importance of ensuring that “existing S&DT provisions improved to make them more precise, effective and operational is a long overdue mandate and MC13 must deliver a meaningful outcome on the G-90 proposals.”
Indonesia emphasized the urgent need “to address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of developing countries.” It pointed out that “incorporating these proposals into the ongoing negotiations will make a significant contribution to the inclusiveness and balance needed in the global trade framework.”
On the topic of WTO reforms there is still no clarity on what would be accomplished at MC13.
The chair for the WTO’s General Council, Ambassador Athaliah Molokomme of Botswana, who is overseeing the negotiations has presented a skeleton of issues. It shows members are yet to begin discussions on controversial issues like the negotiating function and integrating the Joint Statement Initiatives into the WTO rulebook.
The Africa Group says “reform” is a high-priority issue for its members as “it relates to its development dimension and the urgent need for Africa to embark on a sustainable growth path, integrate into high-value global value chains, confront contemporary challenges and build resilience against the multiple crises the world faces.”
The Africa group called “for a rebalancing of certain trade rules and addressing constraints we have identified under Agreements on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS), and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), including exploiting of the potential role of transfer of technology to support these objectives.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here