No consensus on advancing work on NAMA, says Chair

by Kanaga Raja

GENEVA: The Chair of the Negotiating Group on Non-agricultural Market Access (NAMA) on 22 September said that he would report to the Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) that there is no consensus on continuing work on the NAMA negotiations or on establishing a post-Bali work programme.

The TNC, chaired by WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo, is scheduled to hold its next meeting on 6 October.

At the informal meeting of the NAMA Negotiating Group, which was called to hear the views of members on the way ahead in the negotiations, the Chair, Ambassador Remigi Winzap of Switzerland, in his concluding remarks, highlighted three positions that emerged at the meeting:

(1) Some members wanted to continue the work;

(2) Some members hoped that consultations to break the current deadlock would be positive and would allow for the continuation of the work; and

(3) Some members said that under the current circumstances, work could not continue as if  nothing had happened.

According to trade officials, the United States, Japan, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Canada and Switzerland were of the view that work could not continue because trust had been broken due to the failure to adopt the protocol on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) by 31 July as was agreed at the Bali Ministerial Conference last December.

On the other hand, China, Egypt, South Africa and India stressed the need to continue work in the other areas of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), in particular on establishing a work programme to that end. According to trade officials, they said that trade facilitation was not the only item on the agenda and that there were other areas that were also important.

According to trade officials, India also supported China, which said that it did not support the notion to stop work.

China said a TFA was needed but so was a post-Bali work programme. There was a need to re-engage on the work programme, it said, adding that it was urgent to regain confidence.

According to trade officials, India also said that members needed to use this time to continue the work.

“I don’t have a clear view on what you want,” said the NAMA Negotiating Group Chair, in reference to the report that he would be producing for the upcoming TNC meeting.

According to trade officials, Ambassador Winzap said: “I don’t see how I can advance work in NAMA under the circumstances; and if there is no NAMA, there is no Agriculture and no DDA.”

The Chair also said that he could not agree with a member (Egypt) that had told him he did not need to be pessimistic in his report to the TNC.

According to trade officials, South Africa said that in his report to the TNC, the NAMA Chair should avoid stating his personal views.

“Uncertain future”

Meanwhile, the WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo, addressing the Trade and Development Board of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on 22 September, warned of a “freezing effect” on WTO work from the impasse on the Bali package.

Azevedo told the Board that “at present, the future is uncertain”; if the impasse was not resolved, “many areas of our work may suffer a freezing effect, including the areas of greatest interest to developing countries, such as agriculture”.

Speaking of the Bali package and the post-Bali work programme on the Doha Round, Azevedo said all of this was now at risk because of the missed deadline on trade facilitation.

He had met all WTO members on 15 September and was continuing with his own consultations, “but at this point we don’t have a solution.” There would be another meeting of all members on 6 October, and at that time they would reassess the situation in the light of this process of consultations. The priority now was to ensure the implementation of the Bali package, he said.

There seemed to be a clear interplay between concerns on the negotiations on public stockholding and the implementation of the TFA. Both public stockholding programmes and trade facilitation were issues addressed by the Bali decisions, he said. There was no formal or legal linkage between these two issues, but “we cannot deny that there is an important political link bringing them together.”

“At present the future is uncertain. If we solve this issue, I am confident that we will be able to look ahead and resume our efforts in the broader negotiating agenda.

“If we do not, members will have to think carefully about what the consequences are. It would impact on the TF Agreement itself, and all the other Bali decisions – including those that benefit LDCs, the negotiating function of the WTO. My assessment is that we risk disengagement if we don’t solve this impasse shortly,” he said. (SUNS7880)   

Third World Economics, Issue No. 577, 16-30 Sept 2014, p10