TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Sept20/21)
29 September 2020
Third World Network

Rules chair to convene urgent meeting on proposed fisheries deal
Published in SUNS #9199 dated 29 September 2020

Washington DC, 28 Sep (D. Ravi Kanth) – The chair of the Doha rules negotiations at the WTO is convening an urgent meeting on 29 September to decide on the form of the proposed fisheries subsidies agreement, in an attempt to finalize a partial agreement by the end of the year despite lack of progress in core areas, including scope and sequencing issues, trade negotiators told the SUNS.

Close on the heels of the virtual G20 trade ministers’ meeting on 22 September, which called on the WTO members “to achieve an agreement by 2020 on comprehensive and effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies,” the chair has suddenly stepped up efforts for finalizing a partial agreement, said a negotiator, who asked not to be quoted.

In his email sent to members on 23 September, the chair, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia, said he would like to take up with members during the inter-sessional period “whether the instrument we are negotiating is to be a standalone agreement or an annex to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM).”

The chair said “narrowing the choice to these two alternatives was the outcome of our previous discussion of this issue at our meeting of 28 November 2019.”

The chair claimed that “the choice of a standalone agreement or an annex to the ASCM does not necessarily have implications for the substance of the disciplines on fisheries subsidies.”

“However, it does have implications for the drafting and, at least to some extent, on delegates’ ability to engage in text-based discussions,” he said, suggesting that “when introducing the draft text on 25 June, the draft referred generically to the “Instrument” so as not to prejudice the decision of where these new disciplines would be placed.”

“However, the work in the NGR (Doha Negotiating Group on Rules) – including proposals from Members, the facilitators’ work, the draft consolidated document and even textual suggestions from Members received last week – seems to be structured and drafted in a way that suggests a standalone agreement,” the chair emphasized.

Ambassador Wills said that the purpose of the meeting is “to seek your endorsement to continue to draft the disciplines as though it were to be a standalone agreement on the understanding that, should we see an emerging convergence for an annex to the ASCM, it would be re-drafted to reflect this situation.”

Up until now, members have not discussed aspects concerning the institutional arrangements as they remained bogged down in the substantive issues where there is no common ground to make any progress. Also, there are serious legal implications in deciding the form of the agreement at this juncture, said another negotiator, who asked not to be identified.

At the last informal Heads of Delegation (HoD) meeting on 18 September, the coordinator of the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific) group of countries and several other developing countries cautioned that members should not discuss “selected provisions” in isolation of inter-related provisions.

The developing countries said “we tried to discuss our S&DT (special and differential treatment) needs, yet the conversation turned to again others conveying what they think is good for us.”

DISCUSSION ON G90 S&DT PROPOSALS

Meanwhile, in another development on 23 September concerning specific improvements in special and differential treatment (S&DT), the major developed countries, including the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom among others refused to negotiate the specific improvements being sought by the Group of 90 (G90) countries, a developing country negotiator told the SUNS.

The ACP group, which is the largest developing and least-developed country coalition at the WTO, said that the changes in the ten ASPs (Agreement-specific proposals) are essential for pursuing their legitimate developmental priorities to overcome the fiscal and economic crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic on developing countries.

The United States, which is talking of strategic autonomy and re-shoring of manufacturing activities, refused to provide any answers, said a developing country negotiator.

The US seems determined to implement domestic industrialization in violation of its TRIMs (trade-related investment measures) commitments in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, “particularly for re-shoring on the basis of so-called strategic vulnerabilities and the risks presented by un-mitigated globalization,” the negotiator said.

In a 15-page restricted document (Job/Dev/61) circulated on 24 June, the G90 coalition had provided specific answers to the concerns raised by the developed countries.

During the meeting of the Doha special negotiating body on development on 23 September, the G90 members pressed for a constructive discussion on their ten Agreement-specific proposals.

The ten proposals include improvements in the TRIMs (trade-related investment measures), agreement for pursuing domestic industrialization, safeguard measures, balance of payment provisions, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, improvements in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) among others.

The G90 coalition had pressed for making the ten ASPs more “precise, effective and operational” so as to enable them to pursue their developmental agenda.

“To summarize our responses, we would like to emphasize that developing countries and LDCs have been seeking effective, precise, and operational S&DT in compliance with the mandate,” South Africa argued on behalf of the G90 coalition.

“The G90 took into consideration the views of members on the G90 S&DT proposal,” it said, reiterating that “the current proposal is just a starting point in the collective work that lies ahead of us in order to move negotiations forward.”

The G90 emphasized that its “S&DT proposals reflect the legitimate needs of developing countries and LDCs because of their development priorities and concerns, especially in dealing with various financial crises and pandemics.”

Moreover, “the COVID-19 pandemic has had a more severe economic impact than previous crises, and eclipses the 2008 economic crisis in various respects,” with increasing poverty levels.

While the developed countries have adequate resources to tackle the severe economic consequences of COVID- 19 and address any social or economic impacts sooner and more effectively, the “developing countries and, especially least-developed countries, will encounter more obstacles to reactivate their economies and to address any new potential waves of the coronavirus, as many of our members were already in crisis before the pandemic,” South Africa said.

Therefore, “S&DT in the WTO must serve to provide developing countries and least-developed countries with better tools to overcome any crisis and enable them to build resilience,” South Africa pointed out, underscoring the need for WTO Members to be aware that “it is to everyone’s benefit to avoid, to the extent possible that the current inequality gap widens any further”.

“S&DT should not be regarded as a compromise but as a necessity to address the challenges faced by developing countries,” South Africa said.

“It is on the basis of this understanding that the WTO membership resolved to strengthen S&DT provisions and make them more precise, effective and operational,” South Africa said.

It suggested that “there are 155 S&DT provisions in the WTO covered agreements,” adding that “the current proposal only tackles ten agreement-specific provisions to increase the trade opportunities of developing country Members and LDCs, achieving the flexibility of commitments, of action, use of policy instruments, access to effective transitional time-periods, and to help to achieve our developmental goals.”

South Africa said the ASPs are “in line with the mandate as entailed in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.”

The G90 proposals would ensure “resilience and policy flexibility needed by developing countries to overcome the ensuing crisis,” as “developing countries are disproportionately affected by the health and economic calamity that accompanies the pandemic,” South Africa argued.

At the meeting, the developed countries flatly refused to enter into negotiations even after the G90 countries provided detailed answers to their questions, the negotiator said.

In short, while the developed countries are ready to conclude a fisheries subsidies agreement, they are not prepared to enter into a constructive discussion for improving the vital S&DT needs, which had been raised at the launch of the Doha ministerial negotiations in 2001, the negotiator said.