|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul21/27) Geneva, 29 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) – Indonesia, on behalf of the Group of 33 (G33), on 29 July introduced a draft ministerial decision on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, emphasizing the importance of the much-delayed decision on the permanent solution as a sine qua non in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, said people familiar with the development. At the Doha negotiating body meeting on agriculture, Indonesia introduced the draft decision on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Bolivia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. India has agreed to the draft decision in principle, stating that it is awaiting clearance from the capital, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. Earlier, a large majority of countries also supported the African Group’s proposal on a permanent solution for PSH at MC12. The African Group proposal is much more expansive and broad on the permanent solution for PSH programs. At the meeting, Indonesia’s trade envoy Ambassador Syamsul Bahri Siregar clarified the salient features of the draft decision. He said it is a concise proposal in the form of a Ministerial Decision with a reasonable basis based on the inputs and views from other Members and adapted from each member’s capacity. Ambassador Siregar reiterated that the PSH proposal’s primary objective is to address food security for developing countries and LDCs, of which such programs will ensure food and livelihood security for the poor as well as the small farmers. He said every member has a different perspective on food security. However, food reserves under PSH programs play a critical role in food security for developing members and LDCs. He explained that food reserves would: (1) serve as a buffer to price volatilities, hence making food more affordable in the domestic market when international prices spike; (2) facilitate emergency food distribution in situations of crisis, especially during the pandemic; and (3) provide small farmers with reasonable and stable prices and a market to sell to – this “regulation” of the domestic market is especially important for small farmers. He said the basis of the proposal was generated from the Bali Peace Clause core provision with broader product coverage on foodstuff and covering existing and future programs that will provide flexibilities for developing members and LDCs. Provisions under Paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) continue to exist. This approach is considered the most workable and acceptable starting point, given that the Bali Interim Solution has been agreed by all WTO Members to date, he said. Ambassador Siregar spoke about the safeguard provision, suggesting that this proposal has addressed Members’ concerns and ensures the need to enhance the safeguard provision that agricultural products that are subject to the PSH instrument will not be exported or released to the global market as mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6. On the issue of transparency, Indonesia said “it will remain as an integral part of the program through notification in a realistic and not too onerous way for developing members and LDCs to comply.” He said the G33 members remain committed to transparency commitments and are willing to ensure the compliance of the program with the WTO rules and that the program’s objectives will be met. He recalled the situation at the Ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali, in December 2013 “where we had the spirit to find a solution for the stagnation of DDA issues.” As the host, he said, “Indonesia has made its utmost to facilitate and to bridge the gap between Members in order to achieve a landing zone for the interest of the whole WTO Membership and the credibility of the WTO.” Therefore, said Ambassador Siregar, “in this upcoming MC12, such political will and trust among us should be the basis for our work.” He said the chair’s text to be issued on 29 July “could objectively reflect the solutions in the form of text-based negotiating documents that are realistic and address the concerns of all members while in the meantime addressing the pandemic problem.” He also admitted that the G33 proposal “may not be perfect and is open for improvement.” “While we welcome further inputs, we also call for political will and goodwill from the Members to positively consider this proposal to achieve permanent solution on PSH at MC12,” he said. China strongly supported the proposal, and demanded that immediate technical work must begin when members come back from the summer break. Sri Lanka said the current pandemic has worsened the food security situation in developing and least-developed countries. Sri Lanka said the PSH is for livelihood and security concerns, as a buffer to consider during the current pandemic crisis. “WTO must prioritize addressing food security and hunger,” Sri Lanka said, arguing that a permanent solution must be concluded at MC12 and could include elements from the African Group proposal as well. India thanked Ambassador Siregar for navigating the work on preparing the draft decision, stating that the proposal tabled by the G33 is succinct and clarified several aspects of the proposal. India urged the non-proponents to take the real events in countries suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that it provided food from PSH stock to 800 million people. India also spoke about SDG 1 and 2 focusing on hunger and food security. India said the world is watching us to see whether we would deliver on the permanent solution for PSH to fight hunger arising from the pandemic, emphasizing that it is a moral and ethical obligation and it should be delivered. However, the farm exporting countries – Australia, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, the United States, and the European Union among others – opposed the proposal, saying that it lacks balance and is not in consonance with the mandate. In short, the battle-lines are being drawn at MC12 on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, with farm exporting countries refusing to agree to the G33 proposal. The text of the G33 proposal is as follows: “The Ministerial Conference, Having regard to paragraph 1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization; [Conducting the functions of the Ministerial Conference in the interval between meetings pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article IV of the WTO Agreement;] (Note: This sentence will be required if this is a General Council decision.) Taking note of the Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 (WT/MIN(13)/38 – WT/L/913), the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 (WT/L/939) and the Ministerial Decision of 21 December 2015 (WT/MIN(15)/44 – WT/L/979); Recognizing the importance of public stockholding for food security purposes for developing country Members and Least Developed Country Members (LDCs); Decides as follows: 1. Members agree to put in place a permanent solution as set out below, for the use of public stockholding for food security purposes by developing country Members and LDCs. 2. Provided that the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 to 4 are met, Members shall not challenge through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, compliance of a developing Member with its obligations under Articles 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in relation to support provided for foodstuffs in pursuance of public stockholding programmes for food security purposes, that are consistent with the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnotes 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of the AoA. NOTIFICATION AND TRANSPARENCY 3. A developing Member benefiting from this Decision must have notified the Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the Member’s Bound Total AMS or the de minimis level) as result of its programmes mentioned above in respect of the concerned foodstuff for which the Member is seeking benefit of paragraph 2 of this Decision. 4. For the programmes referred to in paragraph 3, the Member shall notify to the Committee on Agriculture in the format specified under the Annex to this Decision. ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION/SAFEGUARDS 5. A developing Member shall endeavour not to export from the procured stocks covered under paragraph 1 of this Annex unless requested by an importing Member. 6. Paragraph 5 shall not apply to exports for the purposes of international food aid, or for non-commercial humanitarian purposes. CONSULTATIONS 7. A developing Member benefiting from this Decision shall upon request hold consultations with other Members on the operation of its public stockholding programmes notified under paragraph 3. MONITORING 8. The Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the information submitted under this Decision. FINAL PROVISIONS 9. This Ministerial Decision shall replace Bali Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (WT/MIN(13)/38 – WT/L/913) and General Council Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (WT/GC/W/688). Pending entry into force of the amendment to the AoA to give effect to this Decision, developing country Members shall have the benefits of this Decision and Members shall not challenge through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism the compliance of a developing country Member with its obligations under Articles 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture with respect to any use by that Member of these provisions. 10. In the event of a conflict between the rights and obligations of the Members of the WTO under the present Decision and their obligations under any other instrument, their rights and obligations under the present Decision shall prevail.”
|
||
