|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct20/30) Geneva, 28 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) – Notwithstanding the lack of progress on substantive issues in the proposed disciplines on prohibiting harmful fisheries subsidies, the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating group intends to issue on 2 November, a revised first draft consolidated text to reflect the changes made in the original draft text, negotiators told the SUNS. In an email sent to members on 26 October, the chair, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia, said that the growing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in Geneva could force him to change the schedule of meetings beginning on 2 November. At a time when the Canton of Geneva and Switzerland as a whole are experiencing a sudden spike in COVID-19 cases and the Swiss administration is on the brink of issuing new restrictions, including lockdown conditions in certain cantons, the chair seems determined to accelerate the fisheries subsidies negotiations, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. In his email, the chair said that he will convene a heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 2 November, as several delegations have pressed for a revised text. Significantly, the chair’s email has suggested a likely differentiation among developing countries for availing special and differential treatment, said a negotiator, who asked not to be quoted. Ambassador Wills did not indicate the names of the delegations that have pressed him to issue the revised first draft, but said the main aim of the changes “is to simplify the text based on our discussions.” The chair suggested “some draft language or alternatives on some placeholders and areas where there is no text at present.” Ambassador Wills said that “the revised draft” will help members to focus future discussions, suggesting that it “will be without prejudice to any Member’s position.” He said that members can indicate their preliminary views on the revised draft depending on “several factors, particularly on how the COVID-19 pandemic develops and measures that may be taken to control it.” The schedule of meetings for the November cluster are as follows: “* Monday afternoon (2 November), all day Thursday (5 November) and Friday (6 November) are reserved for bilateral or other meetings that delegates wish to organize, and any consultations I may hold; * All day Tuesday (3 November/Room S1) and Wednesday (4 November) are reserved for open-ended meetings of the NGR [Negotiating Group on Rules] regarding specific issues.” However, given the amount of work and list of issues for discussion, the chair said that members may need to continue on Thursday morning (6 November). The meeting will begin on Tuesday at 10:00 AM when the chair said he will briefly update the Group on his work since the last cluster. He suggested the following issues in the draft consolidated document for further discussions, “bearing in mind the need for flexibility as to formats and processes, and the existence of clear links among the different parts of the text”: * Article 3.6 on duration of the prohibition for IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) fishing. Article 3.6 in the draft text states: [The prohibition in paragraph 3.1 shall apply as long as the sanction resulting from a determination triggering the prohibition remains in force, or as long as the vessel [or operator] is listed as engaged in IUU fishing, whichever is the longer. In no case shall the duration of the prohibition be less than [X] months from the date on which it first took effect.] During the last cluster, some Members made a link between due process requirements (Article 3.3) in the disciplines for IUU fishing, minor infringements (Article 3.4), and the duration of a prohibition (Article 3.6). The chair suggested that it would therefore be timely to have a discussion on this issue and its linkages with the preceding paragraphs. For this discussion, Members could consider, without prejudice to positions regarding due process requirements: * The chair has posed the following questions such as (1) would the duration of a prohibition apply to a vessel or operator?; (2) could a provision on duration of a prohibition concurrently address the issue of proportionality, or vice versa? In this regard, are the provisions on duration of a prohibition and on proportionality complements or alternatives? * Article 4.5 placeholder on un-assessed fisheries stocks: the chair said the discussion could focus on whether such a provision is required, and, if so: If a stock is un-assessed, should it be considered overfished?; If not, what, if any, would be the implications of having an un-assessed stock? * Article 10 placeholder on dispute settlement and remedies: the chair said that while in the recent past there have been no proposals and limited discussion on these issues, he was told by the facilitator that there does appear to be convergence around the idea that dispute settlement provisions should be based on, or be equivalent to Article 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) or ASCM plus. He also noted that Article 4 of the ASCM deals with dispute settlement procedures. * For remedies and countermeasures, the chair said that he would like to focus on remedies and countermeasures in the context of the fisheries subsidies disciplines. * Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT): the chair said Ambassador Didier Chambovey from Switzerland would report on his activities as a “Friend of the Chair” focusing on S&DT. Depending on the outcome of his consultations, we may have a focused discussion in the plenary on specific elements of S&DT, he said. * One possible topic could be S&DT specific to least developed country Members: The chair said that some delegations may be preparing proposals, and the plenary sessions would be an opportunity to introduce them. With respect to logistics, the chair said “the conditions for in-person and remote participation at the HoDs+1 meeting on Monday 2 November, and the plenary meetings on Tuesday 3 and Wednesday 4 November are the same as those applied to previous meetings of the NGR. I am following closely any Covid-19 development and will let you know if the logistics for any meeting to be adjusted.” Last week, the chair had issued a non-paper or “an aide memoire” of the discussions held during the cluster of meetings this month. In the aide memoire, he acknowledged the serious concerns levelled by several delegations against his work program and the lack of sequencing of issues. The chair said that he has “taken note of the points raised by some Members about procedure, and will continue to be guided both by the need to organize work in a way I consider will be the most efficient, and also to ensure transparency and full opportunities for all delegations to contribute their views.”
|
||
