TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec17/02)
4 December 2017
Third World Network
DG proposes "minister facilitators", chairs report on
state of play
Published in SUNS #8586 dated 30 November 2017
Geneva, 29 Nov (Kanaga Raja) - The WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo
on Tuesday (28 November) proposed the appointment of some five "minister
facilitators" covering agriculture, development, rules, e-commerce,
issues under services and perhaps some other areas. The "minister
facilitators", he said, will be working with the negotiating
chairs at the eleventh WTO ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos
Aires.
This came at the final meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee
(TNC) just before MC11 gets underway in about ten days from now.
[The manner in which so many unresolved issues are being pushed onto
the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference (MC11) is reminiscent of what
happened at the Seattle Ministerial Conference and its disastrous
collapse. Mr. Azevedo's proposal for Minister facilitators is reminiscent
of what took place at the Doha Ministerial Conference, whose outcome
on mandates has been such, that negotiations on the Doha Work Programme
remain stuck - and Mr. Azevedo appears to be maneuvering to jettison
them. At Doha, the work of Minister Facilitators, and of the Green
Room, and the manner in which the Doha Work Programme was adopted,
has brought the WTO talks to an impasse. On Doha, see pp 224-247 of
Vol 2 of "The Third World in Third Millennium CE" by Chakravarthi
Raghavan (2014) - SUNS]
The meeting also heard the chairs of the various negotiating bodies
under the Doha Work Programme reporting on the state of play so far
on the key issues in the negotiations (see below).
The assessment by the DG and the chairs was followed by interventions
by the members, with an overwhelming majority of developing and least
developed countries rejecting "new issues" including establishing
a working group on e-commerce, disciplines for micro, small, and medium
enterprises (MSMEs), and investment facilitation.
They warned that there will be grave consequences if these new issues
are taken up without completing the work on the unresolved issues
in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). (See separate story.)
ASSESSMENT BY DG
In his statement, Director-General Azevedo, who is also the Chair
of the TNC, noted that the last time members met to review progress
on preparations for MC11 was just over a month ago, on 24 October.
Since then, he claimed, there has been significant activity in a number
of areas.
The chairs have continued their consultations, Members have continued
contacts amongst themselves, and he has continued to hold consultations
with members, both in Geneva and in capitals.
"Overall, I think that there has been a lot of progress over
weeks. We have seen excellent engagement. Many proposals were brought
forward, many meetings held, and much hard work has been done. However,
members' positions continue to diverge significantly on the substantive
issues. Despite our best efforts, I don't think there will be agreed
negotiated outcomes in Geneva," said the DG.
"So where does that leave us in terms of our work in Buenos Aires?
While there remains a lack of clarity on what may be possible, I am
hearing that there are numerous issues that members want to talk about
in Argentina. I have been calling for prioritization for some months.
I appreciate members' efforts here, but limited progress has been
made on this front. We still have a lot of issues in play for the
ministerial - many issues to deal with, in a very concentrated time
period. And, of course, they are all important issues that merit ministers'
attention and consideration at the political level. We must consider
how we manage this, and make provision for ministers to deal with
these issues."
"For the sake of the orderly management of the meeting",
Azevedo suggested, "we are considering options for appointing
a few "minister facilitators" who will work with the negotiating
chairs in Buenos Aires. This will be ultimately a decision by the
Chair of the Ministerial Conference."
"Based on the current situation, I think it would be reasonable
to expect facilitators for: agriculture, development, rules, e-commerce,
and I think we would probably have a fifth facilitator covering issues
under services, and maybe some other areas (although I can't be very
specific until all the work is finalized in Geneva)."
So this all may need adjustments, depending on how things evolve.
It would be prudent to remain open for some fine-tuning, said the
DG. "Nonetheless, I believe that five facilitators are about
as much as we can handle - in part because of practical considerations,
such as meeting space in Buenos Aires. Of course there may be other
elements that I will pick up as appropriate together with the Chair
of the Ministerial Conference and the Chair of the General Council."
"Let me say as well that I know some members have also been developing
work in limited group formats. This includes the work on MSMEs, investment
facilitation, and any other issue that is being discussed in a track
different from the negotiating groups. It is for the proponents in
these areas to advance this work as they see fit. If they want to
appoint their own chairs or facilitators at the Ministerial, that
is for them to take forward."
In considering the process for the meeting, clearly openness, transparency
and inclusiveness will be important. In addition, it should always
be a bottom-up process. Many members have emphasised this during our
preparatory work, said Azevedo.
As to how he sees the process at this point in time, the DG said:
"First, the facilitators (as well as the chairs and the Secretariat)
will be there simply to facilitate your work - not to drive it. Their
role will be to convene meetings and facilitate conversations - but
not more than that. The driving force on substance has to come from
the members. Facilitators can only consult and facilitate - they can't
do the job for you.
"Second, facilitators will aim to hold open meetings. All members
who want to participate will have a chance to do so. Moreover, I will
encourage facilitators to coordinate with each other in scheduling
their meetings, so that we avoid overlaps, as far as possible.
"Third, we will also look to hold informal HoDs meetings in Buenos
Aires at the end of each afternoon or early evening - starting on
Monday the 11th. These meetings will be a chance for facilitators
to report back to everyone on their work. And they will be an opportunity
for every minister to participate on every issue and assess progress
achieved in the different areas. Even if you haven't attended a meeting
on a particular issue, you will have a chance to make your views heard
at the HoDs.
"Finally, I will be holding consultations in Buenos Aires, to
help the process where I can. But let me stress that while I will
hold consultations where needed, I will not convene closed-door negotiating
meetings."
He said he will continue to consult with others - with the General
Council Chair, the negotiating group chairs, and the MC11 Chair before
finalizing preparations here in Geneva.
"Given the number of issues likely to be discussed, I think we
have to be prepared for a quite fluid process in Buenos Aires. Arrangements
in ministerial conferences are always difficult. But, as I have explained,
we will do everything we can to ensure that the meeting is open, transparent,
inclusive - and orderly."
It is right that we should take a bottom-up approach - true to the
member-driven nature of the organization. But it is worth noting that
with this approach, the responsibility to advance our work falls squarely
on the shoulders of members, said the DG.
"Success will require you to show flexibility and creativity.
It will also require you to show restraint. If the HoDs meetings are
to function as the forum for decisions, we will need to take a business-like
approach. And this is very important. There will not be an opportunity
for long, prepared statements. Your minister is not required to speak.
We will hear the reports of the facilitators and anything that members
have to say, and then take decisions in a very straightforward and
executive fashion."
Azevedo maintained that MC11 is a very important moment. It is an
opportunity to: take stock of the significant progress that we have
made; deliver wherever we can; and set the direction for our future
work.
"Precisely how far each issue proceeds will depend on the dynamics
of each negotiation. Whether you manage to agree outcomes, a work
programme or neither will depend on the work in each area - and of
course on the decision of the HoDs" said the DG.
"So let's see what we can do. The WTO has been on a very positive
path over the last two ministerial conferences - let's continue that
journey in Buenos Aires and beyond. I ask for your continued commitment,
engagement and flexibility in this final stretch," he added.
REPORTS BY NEGOTIATING GROUP CHAIRS
According to trade officials, the Chair of the agriculture negotiations,
Ambassador Stephen Karau of Kenya, reported that the basis for agreements
that he sees are in the areas of public stockholding (PSH) for food
security purposes and export restrictions and prohibitions.
He said that a decision could be envisaged on cotton at MC11. On domestic
support, he said that unless there are significant changes in negotiating
positions in the next few days, it will be very difficult for members
(to gain anything). They could get a limited outcome comprising a
decision and a work programme to guide the negotiations if positions
change.
On the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM), the Chair said that proponents
are continuing with the views they had up until now, and it is very
hard to see how we can take this forward.
He said that he will have a proposal on this issue at the end of the
week. He will be holding an open-ended meeting on 4 December to look
at all the issues together with the dedicated session on PSH and SSM.
The Chair of the Rules negotiations, Ambassador Wayne McCook of Jamaica,
spoke on the three pillars of the negotiations, namely fisheries subsidies,
trade remedies and horizontal subsidies.
On fisheries subsidies, he said that there have been seven original
proposals. The group is looking at issues such as preamble, scope,
definition, prohibitions, standstill, special and differential treatment,
the issues of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and
overfished stocks. They will be looking as well at overcapacity, transparency
and special and differential treatment.
On trade remedies, Ambassador McCook said that there have been discussions
based on proposals from one member on anti-dumping and countervailing
measures. This is in relation to transparency, and ways in which micro,
small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs) could gain flexibility
under anti-dumping and countervailing regimes.
On horizontal subsidies, the Chair said that there has been nothing
to report since the last meeting.
The Chair of the services negotiations, Ambassador Hector Marcelo
Cima of Argentina, spoke on the four areas of discussion. There is
the Indian proposal on trade facilitation in services (TFS), services
market access, services elements on e-commerce, and domestic regulation.
Nothing has changed in the first three areas. On domestic regulation,
a revised text has been put forward by the proponents which they say
have taken on board the concerns of many developing countries, who
have concerns over the right to regulate and policy space.
The opponents were not happy with some of the elements of the proposal
including on language pertaining to the right to regulate, which they
did not think went far enough. They also did not think that the language
on development went far enough.
[In his written report (TN/S/41) to the TNC dated 27 November 2017,
the Chair noted that on 27 July 2017, India circulated a revised proposal
on services trade facilitation, which has not yet been discussed by
Members. On services elements of e-commerce, the Chair noted that
the European Union circulated, on 23 May 2017, a proposal suggesting
text for rules aiming to facilitate online service transactions.
[According to the Chair, in view of the limited time available before
the Ministerial, proponents in these two areas did not seek further
meetings of the Special Session to discuss their submissions after
the summer break. No outcome in the form of an agreed text can be
expected in Buenos Aires in these areas, and the proponents agree
with this assessment. In terms of post-MC11 work on these two topics,
India and the European Union have communicated their intention to
re-engage on services trade facilitation and online transactions,
respectively, after the Ministerial, he said.
[The Chair said that discussions in the Working Party on Domestic
Regulation (WPDR) in recent months have centred on a text proposing
disciplines on domestic regulation, put forward by a group of proponents
and contained in JOB/SERV/272/Rev.1. This proposal contains seven
sections: general provisions; administration of measures; independence;
transparency; technical standards; development of measures; and development.
[Discussions last took place at the meeting of the WPDR on 7 and 8
November 2017, and divergences remain across the Membership. For one,
co-sponsors of the text consider that rules on licensing and qualification
requirements and procedures, and technical standards would yield greater
transparency and predictability, and provide important value added
to existing market access commitments. They consider that their proposal
is flexible, as it would allow implementation by Members at different
levels of development and regulatory capacity, as well as by means
of diverse regulatory approaches. They also point out that LDCs would
not be required to apply the disciplines.
[Second, some Members expressed reservations of varying degrees of
concern about different aspects of the proposals. Some conveyed general
support, while pointing to a limited number of drafting and technical
issues that they wished to see addressed. Others had more significant
reservations about certain aspects of the text proposal, for example,
in relation to the language on the right to regulate, the development
provisions, the absence of specific provisions on qualification requirements
and procedures, the proposed disciplines on gender equality and necessity,
or the application of the proposed disciplines to varied levels of
sector-specific commitments across the Membership.
[Third, some Members expressed concerns of a more fundamental nature,
pointing to conceptual differences. They questioned the need for the
proposed disciplines and the benefits that these might bring to developing
countries and LDCs. This group of Members maintained that the proposed
text would be incompatible with their development aspirations and
limit policy space. In terms of the way forward in these negotiations,
some Members were of the view that work on the basis of the proponents'
proposal could not lead to an outcome. Others considered the time
remaining to be too short to achieve an outcome at MC11 and suggested
continuing discussions after the Ministerial. Proponents said that
they wanted to continue work with a view to achieving an outcome at
MC11, and considered it important to raise discussions at a higher
political level, said the Chair.]
The Chair of the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session,
Ambassador Tan Yee Woan of Singapore, in relation to the 10 Agreement-specific
proposals (on SDT), said that the differences are deep and wide.
She said that Members are no closer to convergence. The proponents
maintain that these are key to fostering industrialisation and promoting
diversification, and are very important. Others say that these proposals
send the wrong signals about what multilateral rules bring to development
and any deviation from these rules should only be taken in exceptional
circumstances.
She said that the proponents believe that these issues should go to
ministers (at MC11) because they are highly political and they are
concerned about special and differential treatment. Some members said
that having a discussion on trade and development more broadly would
be fine.
According to the Chair, other Members say that convergence is not
possible at MC11, or even afterwards, and that these proposals are
past their expiry date, and that no member should be forced to continue
to discuss this issue. Yet others have said that this is absolutely
central.
[In her written report (TN/CTD/32) to the TNC dated 27 November 2017,
in reference to G90's textual proposals on ten special and differential
treatment (S&D) provisions, the Chair said regardless of the level
of engagement, her assessment of where members stand was that the
fundamental differences in positions remain deep and wide, and Members
were no closer to bridging these differences. The proponents continued
to maintain that the requested flexibilities were needed for fostering
industrialization, promoting diversification and facilitating structural
transformation in their economies. On the other hand, some Members
contended that agreeing to these flexibilities would give a wrong
signal that multilateral trade rules did not foster development. Any
solutions to the issues raised in the proposals must be realistic,
based on facts, and that deviations from rules should only be considered
in exceptional circumstances and for only those who really need them.
The differences with respect to "differentiation" also remained.
[According to the Chair, with no clarity on the way forward and with
the objective of facilitating an honest assessment on where we stood
in our work and to solicit Members' views on the way forward, she
had posed the following questions to Members: (i) what should we do
to make progress in the remaining time available? (ii) what do we
see ourselves, and our Ministers doing on this dossier in Buenos Aires?
(iii) how can we better prepare ourselves for Buenos Aires?
[In response to her questions, the proponents indicated that they
wanted work in the Special Session to be carried on towards a potential
outcome on S&D at MC11. They also wanted Ministers to actively
engage on these proposals in Buenos Aires. They strongly believed
that ministerial engagement would allow for a constructive ministerial
discussion on how developing Members, in particular LDCs, could be
better integrated into the multilateral trading system. Some non-proponents
shared the proponents' views to continue efforts to find landing zone
for MC11.
[On the other side of the fence were some Members who felt that the
discussion on the proposals had reached its limit and any further
work on the same proposals or subsequent revisions to them, would,
at best, be a repetition of what had already been flagged. Given the
paucity of time and the charged dynamics in the run up to MC11, it
would only deteriorate the quality of discussion and lead us nowhere.
They viewed that transmitting "unripe" proposals to Buenos
Aires for ministerial engagement was not the right course of action.
Some Members were of the view that convergence on these proposals
would not be possible either at MC11, or even thereafter. Some Members
were prepared to continue discussion even though they did not believe
convergence would be possible on the basis of the current approach
and proposals, said the Chair.
[At the Special Session meeting held on 20 November 2017, while wrapping
up the discussion, the Chair said she indicated to Members that she
would hold informal consultations to achieve clarity on the way forward.
These consultations were held on 22 November 2017. The G90 reiterated
the importance of Ministers engaging in a discussion at Buenos Aires
on S&D issues, which the Special Session had been discussing for
a long time at the technical level with little results to-date. They
expressed a strong view that any discussion by Ministers should be
based on the ten proposals that Members had been discussing since
September this year. They also stressed that the G90 proposals must
be accorded the same treatment as that which would be accorded to
other proposals/ issues on the table across the house.
[An equally strong view held by some other Members was that if at
all ministerial engagement was necessary, it might be more constructive
for Ministers to discuss broader political trade and development issues
instead of the ten proposals. Some were against the Special Session
convening in Buenos Aires. One Member, in particular, was also categorically
against the Special Session transmitting the proposals to MC11 for
Ministers' consideration. It was however also acknowledged that it
was the prerogative of any Member to table any matter for consideration
at the Ministerial Conference.
[The Chair said although her consultations on 22 November 2017 proved
useful in generating a deeper discussion of the three process-related
questions that she had posed, there were no clear answers to any of
them. There was broad agreement that what Members were trying to grapple
with were important issues. Members continued to stick to previous
positions reflecting wide differences in perceptions on how these
issues could best be tackled and appropriate solutions could be found.
"However, I did not hear any Member objecting to a discussion
by Ministers at Buenos Aires on development issues," said the
Chair.
[After the Chair said she had presented her report at the Special
Session on 23 November, the G90 said that they intended to submit
the ten proposals to Ministers for their action at MC11. Several Members
of the G90 intervened and highlighted their concerns and perceived
imbalances in the multilateral trade rules and hence the need for
revised S&D, particularly for the weaker Members. In recounting
how in the last 16 years they had come down from 88 original S&D
proposals, to 25 in 2015, and then only to 10 in 2017, they said they
were disappointed at the lack of interest by some Members to address
the concerns and challenges that developing countries and the LDCs
faced in their efforts to better integrate into the multilateral trading
system. The G90 members also said that there was a disconnect between
what the Ministers had mandated in paragraphs 5, 31 and 32 of the
Nairobi Declaration and what Members were doing in the Special Session.
The proposals should be sent to Ministers at Buenos Aires because
the technical debate in Geneva had not yielded any outcome. Ministerial
engagement was necessary for a political decision on this dossier.
They emphasized that the S&D proposals should receive equal treatment
(parity) with other proposals in other areas being considered in the
house. Several non-G90 Members also spoke in support of the proposals
and for their onward transmission to Ministers at Buenos Aires, said
the Chair.]
The Chair of the NAMA (non-agricultural market access) negotiations,
Ambassador Didier Chambovey of Switzerland, said that there has been
very little activity for the last two years.
There has only been one proposal, namely from the European Union,
Hong Kong (China) and Chinese Taipei amongst others relating to greater
transparency when governments put in place standards under TBT and
SPS.
The Chair of the TRIPS Council in Special Session, Ambassador Dacio
Castillo of Honduras, said that it is not a priority issue. On the
question of the three areas under discussion, namely the GI register
for wines and spirits, extension of the register beyond wines and
spirits and the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), members want these issues to be kept
on the table after MC11.
The Chair of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment,
Ambassador Dr Syed Tauqir Shah of Pakistan, said members want the
issues here to be raised in any Declaration.
The Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body in Special Session, Ambassador
Coly Seck of Senegal, said that members are not in a position to come
out with any outcomes at MC11.