TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb22/13)
16 February 2022
Third World Network

India sharply criticizes chair’s text on agriculture at WTO
Published in SUNS #9515 dated 16 February 2022

Geneva, 15 Feb (D. Ravi Kanth) – India has apparently conveyed to the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations last week that the current textual formulations in the chair’s text on the mandated issues of the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries as well as on the special safeguard mechanism need to be removed for any further negotiations to take place, said people familiar with the development.

During the consultations with trade envoys in small groups and at an informal meeting of the Doha Committee on Agriculture on Friday, the chair, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, apparently came under intense criticism for allegedly undermining decisions on the mandated issues of the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries, and on the special safeguard mechanism (SSM), said people familiar with the development.

In one small-group meeting with India, Indonesia, which coordinates the G-33 group of developing countries, and the Philippines last week, India is understood to have conveyed two strong messages.

They include that (1) the current text on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security is apparently not negotiable; and (2) India remains opposed to the appointment of a facilitator as proposed by the chair on behalf of some countries, said people familiar with the discussions.

Indonesia seems to have conveyed that while the G-33 group remains open to discuss the concerns raised by the non-proponents such as the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries and other opponents, it expressed its frustration that questions that have already been answered in the previous meetings should not be repeated all over again, as part of seemingly “stonewalling” tactics being adopted by some countries, said people familiar with the development.

At a meeting of the Doha Agriculture Committee in special session on Friday, many developing countries reiterated their specific concerns about the chair’s text, while the United States and Brazil apparently stated that they would support issues concerning food security but not the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security (PSH), said people, who preferred not to be quoted.

INDIA’S CONCERNS

During last week’s meetings, India apparently conveyed that any further negotiations on PSH and SSM can be held only after the current formulations in the chair’s text on both these issues are removed, said people familiar with the development.

The chair, in her report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/AG/5) on 23 November last year, had said that her “assessment that it would be extremely difficult to achieve a permanent solution at MC12 [WTO’s 12th ministerial conference, which was postponed last year] was not shared by some developing country Members, who insisted that I forward this issue to Ministers for their consideration and decision.”

She said “several Members strongly objected to this proposed course of action, notably due to the lack of detailed technical work on elements for a permanent solution and the absence of parallel progress on domestic support.”

The chair from Costa Rica said that “given the stalemate, my recommendation to Ministers is for the adoption of a work programme with a view to agreeing on a permanent solution by MC13.”

She also maintained that given the importance attached to the PSH issue by several developing country Members, “Ministers may, if they so wish, consider revisiting it, bearing in mind the significant divergent positions as outlined above, among the Membership.”

On the issue of SSM, Ambassador Peralta said: “Several developing Members attach importance to an outcome on SSM at MC12, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, given the deep divergence among Members on some fundamental aspects of the SSM negotiations, including on the issue of linkage with market access, it has become apparent that a substantive outcome on SSM at MC12 – even in a limited or temporary setting – is increasingly unlikely.”

The chair also proposed that “the General Council makes recommendations on this matter to MC13 for the consideration of Ministers.”

At a meeting of the WTO’s Doha agriculture negotiating body on 24 January, India and many other developing countries apparently sharply criticized the chair for creating unprecedented levels of “trust deficit”, while also voicing their disapproval of the chair’s draft agriculture text issued last year, said people familiar with the development.

As reported in SUNS #9500 dated 26 January 2022, members from the African Group, the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group, India, Indonesia, on behalf of the G-33 coalition of developing countries, and South Africa alleged that the chair has violated the core provisions contained in document TN/C/1 about how the chairs of the negotiating bodies in the Doha negotiations must discharge their duties, said people, preferring anonymity.

There was continued opposition to the chair’s draft report (also containing the chair’s draft text) in the meetings Ambassador Peralta held with developing countries in different configurations last week, said people familiar with the development.

Against this backdrop, India has apparently urged the chair to remove her formulations on both PSH and SSM for any further negotiations to take place, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

CHAIR’S SUGGESTION ON APPOINTING FACILITATORS

During the meetings last week, Ambassador Peralta suggested that some members had called for the appointment of facilitators, without mentioning their names.

Apparently, India is understood to have said that it would not support any proposal for appointing facilitators given what had happened when a facilitator was appointed on the special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions in the fisheries subsidies negotiations, said people familiar with the discussions.

The facilitator on S&DT in the fisheries subsidies negotiations was Ambassador Didier Chambovey from Switzerland, whose recommendations caused an unbridgeable gap among a majority of developing countries and the biggest subsidizers such as the European Union, the US, Japan, Canada and several South American countries.

In short, India, the G-33 and many African countries seem to be unconvinced by the chair’s proposals because of the “trust deficit” that she had created throughout the Doha agriculture negotiations during the past one year, said people who asked not to be quoted.

NEW INTERPRETATION OF FOOD SECURITY BY BRAZIL & US

At last week’s meeting, a new narrative seems to have been advanced by Brazil and the US in that food security is different from PSH, said people familiar with the development.

For the past several months, the opponents of the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security have advanced the controversial narrative that members must address global food security first.

In a restricted room document (RD/AG/79) issued on 21 September 2020, Brazil had argued that concerning domestic support, FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization) recommends that countries “design this type of policies in a way that they do not affect international markets and, instead, should seek to promote inter-regional trade.”

Brazil said that according to FAO, “supporting farmers’ incomes can also be achieved through direct payments, decoupled from production decisions, as a potentially more cost-efficient approach.”

“In sum, it recommends that countries avoid excessive subsidization, which may exacerbate market volatility and encourage balanced and time-bound domestic support measures to maintain adequate production levels and farmers’ income. Domestic support is the only AoA (Agreement on Agriculture) pillar in which no progress has been made so far since the Uruguay Round. Members’ different reactions to the pandemic stressed the imbalances between their outlays and entitlements under AoA and made more pressing an outcome that could cap and reduce trade-distorting domestic support without deterring Members’ needs to face the immediate and temporary effects of the pandemic.”

Brazil said that “regarding public stockholding programmes,” as stated by FAO, “increasing stock purchases by governments when stocks are already high can lower availability on international markets and put upward pressure on food stockpiling by consumers or other private actors can have similar effects.”

Significantly, Brazil also said that “the more Members had to resort to them as a tool of addressing food security concerns during the current pandemic, the more urgent finding a permanent solution becomes. Proponents and non-proponents should work together to narrow gaps in several issues, from the coverage to transparency provisions, including the disposal of stocks. In the meantime, guarantees should be given that stocks being procured now will not be released in a damaging way for food markets and other Members’ food security.”

In a nutshell, it is increasingly becoming clear that the mandated issues of the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries, and the special safeguard mechanism could make or break MC12 if it is reconvened in the month of May, said people familiar with the discussions.