TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov22/02)
4 November 2022
Third World Network

WTO: Stalemate on appointment of chairs of Doha agriculture & Rules bodies
Published in SUNS #9681 dated 3 November 2022

Geneva, 2 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — The continued stalemate at the World Trade Organization over the appointment of the chairs of the Doha negotiating bodies on agriculture and Rules, which oversees the fisheries subsidies negotiations, has apparently brought the concerns raised by the developing countries to the centre stage, said people familiar with the development.

The stalemate seems to have exposed the simmering divide and apparent distrust over the package announced by the chair of the WTO General Council (GC), Ambassador Didier Chambovey of Switzerland, on 1 November.

At an informal meeting of the General Council on 1 November, which was convened to decide on the chairs of the two negotiating bodies, the GC chair apparently informed members that following consultations held with them by the three-member body (also referred to as the “Troika”), there is an emerging consensus on Turkiye’s trade envoy Ambassador Alparsian Acarsoy on chairing the Doha agriculture negotiating body, and Ambassador Petter Oleberg of Norway, on chairing the Doha Rules negotiating body, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

The three-member “Troika” comprises the GC chair, the chair of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), Ambassador Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme of Botswana, and the former GC chair, Ambassador Dacio Castillo of Honduras.

While there is broad consensus on the proposed candidate for the agriculture chair, namely, Turkiye’s trade envoy Ambassador Acarsoy, many developing countries refused to approve the candidature of Norway’s trade envoy Ambassador Oleberg as chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body, said participants, who asked not to be quoted.

Consequently, many developing countries, including India, Pakistan, South Africa, and other countries sought to de-link the two bodies at this juncture due to sharp differences over the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body, said participants, preferring not to be identified.

CANDIDATES PROPOSED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Earlier, the Asian Group of Developing Countries (AGDC) had proposed Ambassador Acarsoy of Turkiye as the agriculture chair and Ambassador Ms Gothami Silva of Sri Lanka as chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body.

Ambassador Silva is a tough negotiator and her vast experience in trade negotiations is an asset for administering the Rules negotiating body that has to complete work on the most difficult issue of disciplines for curbing harmful fisheries subsidies in the overcapacity and overfishing pillar, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

The Sri Lankan trade envoy is also well known for her “balanced” positions and appears to be the right candidate for ensuring a fair process at the Rules negotiating body, unlike the previous chair, former Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia.

Ambassador Wills of Colombia was allegedly rewarded by the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, with a rather “plum” post at the WTO Secretariat as the Director of the Council Division, for allegedly ensuring heavily “imbalanced” negotiations with “rigged” texts in favour of the big subsidizers like China, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Norway, Japan, Korea, and Chinese Taipei among others, trade envoys said.

As opposed to the AGDC nominees, the industrialized countries apparently proposed Ambassador Oleberg of Norway as the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body and Ambassador Ms Clare Kelly of New Zealand as the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiating body.

The Doha agriculture negotiating body has been largely chaired by successive trade envoys from New Zealand since 2003.

As compared to the last chair, Ambassador Ms Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, who had been accused of undermining the agriculture negotiations, the trade envoys from New Zealand were seen to be much more balanced and fair in the manner in which they conducted the negotiations, the trade envoy said.

Nonetheless, the Asian Group, particularly the South Asian developing countries, demanded that Ambassador Silva must be appointed as the chair of the Doha Negotiating Group on Rules, the trade envoy said.

At the informal GC meeting on 1 November, there was broad consensus among both industrialized and developing countries for appointing Ambassador Acarsoy of Turkiye to chair the Doha agriculture negotiating body.

However, there was a divide over the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body between the EU, Australia, and some other countries on the one side, and many developing countries on the other.

The developing countries said that since there is no consensus on the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body at this juncture, it would be prudent to de-link the two bodies, while agreeing on the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiating body because of the overwhelming consensus over its chair at this juncture, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

The EU, however, demanded linkage between the two bodies as proposed by the GC chair, while Australia and a few other countries sought to implement the GC chair’s decision, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Some developing countries supported the new Norwegian Ambassador as chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body on grounds that he may ensure a balanced and fair process, in comparison to the Sri Lankan trade envoy who has been a tough negotiator on fisheries subsidies with strong positions, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

However, several other developing countries reckoned that Norway, allegedly being seen as a major subsidizer in the fishing sector, could adopt pro-subsidizer positions in the fisheries subsidies negotiations, said a participant after the GC meeting.

At the meeting, the EU adopted a strong position against de-linking the two chairs, insisting that the two candidates proposed by the GC chair are based on consultations with members, the participant said.

DG SUFFERS SETBACK ON “INVEST FOR TRADE”

Meanwhile, in a separate development concerning a meeting on Aid for Trade on 1 November, several developed countries including the United States, Switzerland, and Canada among others pushed back against the DG’s controversial proposal on “Invest for Trade” (IfT) in place of Aid for Trade (AfT), said people familiar with the meeting.

It has emerged that the IfT is the DG’s own proposal and is not promoted by any member of the trade body, said a person, who asked not to be quoted.

At the meeting on 1 November, the US, Switzerland, and Canada among others raised serious concerns over the DG’s proposal, saying that when the AfT initiative is going well, there is no need for IfT, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Worse still, the IfT, which is expected to come with stringent conditions, is not beneficial for the least-developed countries (LDCs), said an LDC representative, who asked not to be quoted.

As reported in SUNS #9668 dated 17 October 2022, the IfT appears to be WTO-inconsistent and is a systemic shift from the 2005 Hong Kong ministerial mandate, said people who asked not to be quoted.

In her statement at the General Council meeting on 7 October, the DG had touted the AfT initiative, saying that it “has played a very important part in helping build trade-related infrastructure and supply side capacity, but it’s also time to update and modernize the initiative.”

The DG said that “there is a clear desire that is already translating into action to move global initiatives towards sustainable development models of growth and trade.”

According to the DG, “it’s time to move to an Invest for Trade approach” ostensibly “for the least developed countries – a fact recognized in the MC12 Outcome Document.”

Perhaps, in preparation for her participation at the climate change conference that is starting next week in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, the DG seems determined to make a “big splash” at the event, by saying that IfT would be beneficial for the least-developed countries in the arena of climate change investments, said a person, who asked not to be quoted.

In her GC statement on 7 October, the DG argued that “official development assistance needs to work in tandem with and mobilize other sources of finance,” emphasizing that “one part of the solution is international investment flows.”

According to Ms Okonjo-Iweala, while public funds “are coming on-stream in the form of climate finance and financial sector initiatives such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, there is also a growing stock of private financing chasing environmental, social and governance returns.”

Several major industrialized countries, including the US and the EU, had made some rather bold claims at the Glasgow climate meeting late last year that private investment flows will enable climate finance. However, indications are that such claims remained only on paper.

“If we put these elements together,” said the DG in her statement, “it is clear to me that a re-positioning of the Initiative is needed. A realignment that ensures that we capture the opportunities for sustainable trade and export diversification.” +