|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture Geneva, 28 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has apparently suffered a huge setback, at a retreat held at the WTO on 24 October, over her alleged plans to “reset” the agenda for the Doha agriculture negotiations by bringing in issues concerning climate change and “sustainability” based on trans-Atlantic trade proposals, said people familiar with the development. For the first time, several WTO members appear to have conveyed in unmistakable terms to the DG that in a member-driven organization, it is the members who set the agenda and not the DG, said a trade envoy from a South American country. Several Asian developing countries challenged her alleged plans of moving away from the core agriculture agenda, as has been decided by trade ministers, and into issues that are being tackled in other international fora, particularly the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Conference of Parties, said another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. “The DG is undermining the political dynamics concerning the climate change negotiations that have complete legitimacy in addressing the existential issues,” said a trade envoy, who preferred not to be quoted, suggesting that she is “not only undermining the agriculture negotiations at the WTO but is also wading into areas which are hitherto considered as non-trade issues.” In another apparent setback for the DG, several developing countries of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries asked Ms Okonjo-Iweala not to issue any report on the retreat because of the issues discussed at the retreat that seem to undermine the actual agriculture negotiations based on the mandated issues, as well as proposals for reforming trade-distorting domestic subsidies, a Cairns Group envoy said. Although no reports of the breakout sessions were issued after the retreat, the DG attempted to paint a rather “rosy” picture of what was discussed and what had happened during the day-long deliberations on 24 October. Interestingly, the DG admitted at the retreat that she is a co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, a forum launched at the World Economic Forum in 2022. Another co-chair of the Global Commission, Prof Johan Rockstrom of Sweden’s Stockholm University, addressed the retreat, raising issues of conflict of interests, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. DG PRESENTS A “MISLEADING” PICTURE According to a press release issued by the WTO Secretariat after the retreat and posted on the WTO website, the DG, in her opening statement at the retreat, maintained that despite some positive developments, “too often, markets for food and agriculture still continue to function poorly”. “It’s increasingly clear that WTO rules have not kept pace with the challenges we face today, nor with developments on global markets,” she declared. WTO members “will have to update the WTO rule-book if we’re to respond effectively to the problems on global markets, and ensure WTO disciplines help us tackle the challenges we’re facing both today and tomorrow.” Without addressing the unresolved mandated issues, the DG’s call to update the WTO rule-book appears to be inconsistent with her role as the DG, as per paragraph 4 of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement. Paragraph 4 of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement states: “The responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat shall be exclusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties, the Director-General and the staff of the Secretariat shall not seek or accept instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO. They shall refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The Members of the WTO shall respect the international character of the responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat and shall not seek to influence them in the discharge of their duties.” The DG’s call for “members to consider a new approach towards the WTO agriculture negotiations in order to overcome the entrenched differences that have stymied progress in the talks,” appears to be somewhat misleading. On the one side, Ms Okonjo-Iweala wants issues pertaining to climate change in agriculture to be discussed, while on the other side, she is seeking new approaches to break the logjam in the negotiations. Although the retreat included “two plenary sessions open to all WTO members where leading experts on farm trade and food security addressed the various challenges facing the agricultural sector and possible policy responses,” strangely enough, the WTO Secretariat did not put out what members had said at these plenary sessions. It was at the plenary sessions that members apparently came down on the DG’s statement, as well as her alleged plans and attempts to “reset” the negotiations. For example, when one member (apparently Nepal) started reading out a statement at the plenary, the DG asked the member to speak briefly and to drop the reading of its statement, said a participant, who asked not to be quoted. At the plenary, Uruguay apparently strongly criticized the alleged attempts to bring climate change issues into agriculture, as a plan to undermine the agriculture negotiations by not addressing the core reform issues, said a South American participant, who preferred not to be identified. Further, Uruguay alleged that the climate change elements are being brought, in an apparent move to undermine their cattle exports, the participant said. The WTO’s press release alluded to five break-out sessions for “brainstorming” on two questions centering around “contemporary challenges”. The questions are how should the WTO approach agriculture and what should be the key considerations going forward, and how can the WTO’s agriculture negotiations be reinvigorated to achieve possible outcomes at the next Ministerial Conference. As reported in SUNS #9669 dated 18 October 2022, the retreat was packed with experts whose presentations were seen to be advancing issues that are not part of the Doha agriculture work program, which had made substantial advances since 2002 despite the current logjam. While the DG claimed that there was an “extremely constructive spirit” in both the plenary and breakout sessions, several members felt that the retreat achieved no useful purpose and was “ill-designed”, people familiar with the discussions said. Another claim of the DG that “the objective of “getting everyone out of their comfort zone” had been achieved”, also appears to be patently false, said people, suggesting that no one showed any willingness to give up their positions. “If we could bottle the spirit we had here today and take it with us, it would be a very good takeaway,” the DG told members. “If we are able to do this, then I really have hope for us to go somewhere with agriculture.” The former New Zealand trade envoy and chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Vangelis Vitalis, who is currently Deputy Secretary with New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said it was urgent that members come together and grapple with the challenges facing them. “We have a war that is affecting agricultural trade,” he said. “We have COVID. We have the risk of food [insecurity] and famine. And of course we have a climate crisis. Clearly, as we look out onto the world now, the rules are fragmenting and they are less enforceable than they were. We can find common ground and, colleagues, it is urgent that we do so.” TRIANGLE OF VIEWS At the retreat, there were three sets of views that appear to have occupied the center stage. Many members highlighted food security as a major issue. But there were differences on what would constitute food security, as many developing countries demanded a permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security to address hunger. As regards the second set of views, several European countries – the European Union, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom – as well as the United States, apparently echoed the need to reset the agenda with “sustainability” as a major focus. In the past, right at the beginning of the Doha round of trade negotiations in 2000, the EU and some of its members had raised the issue of “multi-functionality” and the environment. The re-surfacing of this issue and the manner in which the DG is championing the “sustainability” issue is a source of serious concern, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. At the plenary meeting during the retreat, several South American countries, particularly Uruguay, raised concerns that under the cover of “sustainability”, attempts are being made to undermine cattle exports, the trade envoy said. As regards the third set of views, some countries seemed prepared to discuss some elements of “sustainability” but not the manner in which the DG is apparently trying to advance the issue, allegedly to undermine the agriculture negotiations, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Several South American countries seem to be fearing that by taking on the “sustainability” agenda, the actual agriculture negotiations involving reforms in trade-distorting support and other areas are going to be permanently impaired, a trade envoy said. Also, if the DG is focusing on climate change and “sustainability” in agriculture, why is she not also including the industrial sectors that contribute more to emissions than the cattle sector, the trade envoy said. In crux, the retreat ended with more questions about the DG’s agenda on “sustainability” and the lack of any work program on how to advance the Doha agriculture negotiations, as the DG is operating under the mandate of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee, trade envoys said. +
|
||
