WTO: Agriculture Differences Remain

Doha agriculture negotiations Chair Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Türkiye is understood to have held a meeting with a dozen trade envoys yesterday to elicit their views on how to finalize an outcome document for trade ministers to decide at the World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference, our correspondent reports.

Trade envoys from the United States, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Cameroon and South Africa are said to have attended the meeting.

The overall mood and ambiance appeared somewhat better than last months’ discussions, when an official from an unnamed country criticized the chair for including an item on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs in the list of priorities that he had prepared for consultations, said several people familiar with the discussions.

The meeting appears to have witnessed some frank discussions, even though the time for arriving at an outcome on agriculture is limited given that MC13 will take place next month.

Chair Urged to Take Control

At the meeting, some trade envoys asked the chair to take control of the process of preparing a text while others said members have to show flexibility and come out of their restricted national positions, said people familiar with the discussions.

Ministers cannot be expected to stitch an outcome out of thin air at the MC13, said some members. Members asserted it would be impractical to leave the difficult issues in agriculture to ministers to decide in the eleventh hour, suggesting that there must be a broad outline of the landing zones before members proceed to Abu Dhabi to ensure that the ministers could take some decision, said people familiar with the outcome.

At the closed-door meeting held at the chair’s residence, different members appeared to have echoed their positions while a few members called for flexibility.

Given the paucity of time with just about six weeks left before MC13, an outcome on the mandated issues like the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security and the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries are imperative for some members, said people who asked not to be quoted.

“There is no convergence yet on any of the issues among trade envoys at the meeting, but they spoke frankly with an open mind,” said one source who asked not to be quoted.
There has to be a blueprint in terms of an outcome that is palatable and can be finalized at the MC13, said people who asked not to be quoted.

Food Security

At the meeting, there was also a discussion on food security with different interpretations as to what it would constitute, sources said.

While the African Group has called for a “food security package” that would include
commitments in green box, blue box, amber box and cotton, some other participants defined food security very narrowly, said people who asked not to be quoted.

It remains to be seen how the discussion will proceed and whether the chair will issue a draft outcome on his own responsibility, said trade envoys who asked not to be quoted.
Given opposition from the United States to the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security,

Washington may go to any extent to block an outcome on this issue, said people familiar with the agriculture negotiations.  It appears the United States said at last month’s General Council meeting that the Bali decision on PSH was a mistake knowing full well that developing countries paid a huge price for a brand-new agreement on Trade Facilitation at the WTO’s ninth ministerial conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013, said trade envoys from developing countries.

It is against this background that WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala expressed serious concern at the trade negotiations committee meeting on December 12.   Ms. Okonjo-Iweala made the following comments at the TNC meeting, according to restricted document Job/TNC/122:

1. “We need to find ways to break out of the quarter-century-long stalemate in these negotiations. I know I am jawboning you but I really mean it. We have to find a way. This is about strengthening the multilateral trading system, but more importantly, it's about doing our part to address the challenges of hunger, malnutrition, poverty, livelihoods and ensuring food security in a changing world.
2. We heard from the CoA SS Chair, Ambassador Acarsoy, what I consider a very sobering report. 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, he vows 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. This is your homework now in agriculture. The CoA SS Chair has tried from many approaches – and we had the mini-Ministerial on agriculture.
3. Your homework on agriculture is to reach out to each other – to those with whom you have differences – and see if you can come to some agreement about how to move forward in this area. We have all heard the report. We all know each other's positions well. We have known them over the years – so I hope you will also work with the CoA SS Chair so we do not arrive at MC13 empty-handed on agriculture and food security. That would be a sad state of affairs. So, I urge you on this one and I would like to hear your views during your interventions on ideas you have about how we might act on the suggestions made by the CoA SS Chair.
4. If we do not use the opportunity of MC13 to break through the stalemate and if we cannot find a way forward for MC13 then it may be something that is somewhat of a lost cause. We do not want that to be the case. That is why I am sounding the alarm now about trying to work with each other during the break and finding a way forward.”

Chair’s Report

In his oral report at the TNC meeting, Ambassador Acarsoy said that “On a positive note, we now have proposals on almost all negotiating topics on the table, including on PSH, domestic support, market access, SSM, export restrictions, including one by LDCs, cotton, as well as on food security in general.”

He welcomed several new submissions, saying they confirm “the interest of Members in achieving an outcome on agriculture.” Ambassador Acarsoy said “One of the main challenges is to find an appropriate balance between the different priorities and levels of maturity of the issues under negotiation and the need to preserve a comprehensive and balanced approach in which all Members can envisage trade-offs while taking into account Members' different priorities.”

He praised the DG for convening several high-level meetings, adding that “unfortunately (the meetings) confirmed the deep schism in Members' positions on some key negotiating issues.” The chair suggested that “there continue to be very divergent views regarding approaches and preferences as to whether there needs to a sequencing of negotiating topics or a more holistic approach under which all issues are considered concurrently as well as the levels of ambition sought.”

He said “some Members would like certain issues to be resolved first (such as Public Stockholding, domestic support, the SSM and/or cotton), while others are calling for a more holistic approach or for topics to be advanced in parallel. This is particularly the case for domestic support and the PSH, but also for market access and SSM.”

The chair said in his oral report at the TNC meeting that “ some Members consider that an outcome at MC13 should clearly define guidelines and parameters for the post-MC13 negotiations, including with a view to agreeing on modalities by MC14.”

In the same breath, the chair said that “some Members would be prepared to consider some deliverables on certain issues that they consider relatively more feasible (such as transparency and export restrictions) while giving direction to the other subjects for the post MC13 negotiations. While all Members stress the need to have an outcome on food security, the same divergences emerge in the discussions, including on how to best achieve this objective.”

Therefore, the chair concluded that “There is clearly a lack of convergence in Members' positions on the key negotiating issues; in some instances, positions have hardened as we get closer to the Ministerial.”

Without naming the official, nor the country, the chair lamented that “One of the conversations during these consultations unfortunately went beyond criticism. It was unpleasant, unacceptable and lacked diplomatic courtesy. I do not believe this should be the way to do business here in the WTO.”

Despite this incident, the chair yesterday went on to make an extra effort to jump-start the discussions to find a middle-ground outcome that is palatable to all members in the short time remaining, said people who asked not to be quoted.