|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct23/23) Geneva, 30 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s Director-General and the Chair of the General Council on 28 October issued a summary of the main points covering all the issues that emerged from the Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) held last week, but trade diplomats pointed out that there are apparently several discrepancies on the various mandated issues, said participants familiar with the discussions. It is somewhat surprising that the report was issued on 28 October, four days after the SOM, which was held on 23-24 October, said a participant familiar with the discussions. The 14-page revised report issued as an unrestricted document (WT/GC/Rev.1 or TN/C/22/Rev.1) covers both the mandated and non-mandated issues. Ahead of the SOM, on behalf of the Latin American Group, Brazil and Ecuador wrote a letter to the DG complaining that more time was allocated to the non-mandated issues. “We note, however, that the proposed SOM agenda and structure affords a disproportionate focus to non- mandated subjects that have received limited discussion in the past. On that regard, the Latin American Group would welcome a readjustment of the meeting’s agenda in order to allocate appropriate time frames for the mandated negotiation on agriculture.” Against this backdrop, the summary report issued by the DG, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and the chair of the General Council (GC), Ambassador Dr Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme of Botswana, “is not exhaustive but contains the main messages from the oral reports from facilitators of the breakout sessions and those made in the plenary sessions including emerging themes or common trends; the political guidance or support received from senior officials; and any other action taken by Senior Officials over the past two days.” DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REFORM There is little change in the summary on dispute settlement (DS) reform issued in the final report on 28 October and in the advance report issued on 24 October. However, there seems to be some differences between the latest summary and the report issued by the facilitator on dispute settlement, Mr Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik of Norway. The facilitator on DS reform made significant observations in paragraphs five and six of his report: * Senior Officials considered that the informal process on DS reform constitutes an important step towards preparing the ground for an outcome at MC13 – and that good progress has been achieved towards this end. Some Senior Officials stressed the importance of ensuring a meaningful outcome. * When it comes to the issue of formalization of the informal technical process on DS reform, there was a common understanding amongst Senior Officials who spoke on this issue that, at some juncture, before MC13, the process needs to be integrated into a formalized structure under the auspices of the DSB Chair. There were however some divergent views as to the appropriate timing of the formalization of the process. However, the summary issued by the DG and the GC chair appears to have downplayed the importance of formalizing the informal technical process on DS reform before MC13. Barring a few industrialized countries, particularly the United States, many members apparently pressed for formalization of the informal discussions prior to MC13, said participants, who asked not to be quoted. AGRICULTURE On Agriculture, including food security, the original advance copy issued by the DG and the GC chair did not cover issues raised by different groups of developing countries on the mandated issues like the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, the special safeguard mechanism (SSM), cotton, holistic reform of agriculture based on Article 20 of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, export restrictions, and food security. In the face of complaints made somewhat directly by Brazil, India, Indonesia, and several other countries, the DG and the GC chair revised the language to include all these issues on the last day when the SOM was almost concluded. Consequently, the latest summary states: “Regarding agriculture and food security, it was reassuring that several Senior Officials stressed the necessity of making progress in the agriculture negotiations on the basis of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and obtaining credible results on all issues of interest to Members including public stockholding for food security purposes, domestic support, market access, Special Safeguard Mechanism, cotton, export restrictions and export competition, and strengthening the agriculture sector to respond to contemporary challenges including rural livelihoods and environmental sustainability.” More importantly, the facilitator on agriculture including food security, Mr Mustafa Tuzcu of Turkiye, made pertinent observations which were not properly reflected in the latest summary by the DG and GC chair. In the second paragraph of his report, the facilitator made the following observations that ought to have been reflected in the final summary: 1. With respect to the first question about what would constitute the most optimal results on agriculture at MC13, and what could be the contribution of MC13 to food security, there were divergences in Members’ positions. 2. For many developing Members, it was important for previous Ministerial mandates to be fulfilled. In that regard, they called for the adoption of a Permanent Solution to the PSH issue at MC13 considering the pivotal role it could play in alleviating the food security crisis and improving the livelihoods of farmers. They called for text-based negotiations as soon as possible. Some Members thought that reaching an agreement on a permanent solution would enhance WTO’s credibility and unlock progress in the broader agricultural reform process. It was suggested by some LDCs that government to government sales from PSH stocks at discounted prices to LDCs and other vulnerable Members should be allowed to alleviate the food security crisis they are facing. 3. While recognising the role of PSH programmes, some Members expressed the view that it was only one of the tools that could be deployed to improve food security and considered that food security challenges would be better addressed within an open and less distorted trading system. For these Members, a permanent solution can only be achieved within the broader negotiations on domestic support to address the structural causes of food insecurity. 4. While proponents called for the updating of the external reference prices (ERPs) to better reflect current realities, some other Members observed that this issue should not be assumed to be a mere technical exercise as it would entail wider ramifications on Members’ domestic support commitments. 5. Most Members also identified the disciplining of trade distorting domestic support as a priority for MC13. However, divergent views were expressed as to how this overarching objective could be achieved. For some Members, it was necessary to level the playing field. Several Members thought that it would not be possible for an agreement to be reached on modalities at MC13 and that the optimal result would be to agree on broad parameters to guide the negotiations post-MC13 for a substantive outcome at MC14. Whereas some Members were of the view that a holistic approach should be adopted by considering all trade distorting support, others, mainly developing countries, considered it essential to preserve the flexibility under Article 6.2. Several Members were of the considered view that the various submissions on the table constituted a good basis to pursue the negotiations. 6. The need for an outcome on cotton was also mentioned by several developing Members, particularly the C-4, who recalled that Ministers had agreed that cotton would be dealt with ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically. 7. Some few Members identified Market Access as a priority for them in the lead up to MC13. They urged addressing both tariff and non-tariff barriers and alluded to the link between market access and food security. 8. Many developing countries also expressed the view that an optimal outcome on agriculture should include a special safeguard mechanism for developing countries to counter import surges and steep price declines. The challenge posed by the entry of subsidized agricultural imports was also raised by some. 9. While acknowledging the relevance of all topics in providing a comprehensive response to the food security crisis, several Members stressed the importance of well-functioning supply chains and considered that a substantive outcome on Export Restrictions at MC13 could constitute a concrete contribution by the WTO in addressing the current crisis. It was mentioned that enhanced transparency, including through clarification of some relevant terms would be apposite. Some Members, however, said that they were opposed to any limitation on their current policy space to take recourse to such measures to assuage their domestic food security concerns. 10. Some other Members opined that an MC13 outcome should especially focus on possible immediate deliverables focussing on the needs of LDCs and NFIDCs. It was stressed in that connection, positive outcomes needed to be achieved on the follow-up to work programme established under paragraph 8 of the MC12 Ministerial Declaration on Food Insecurity. The possible exemption of these Members from the imposition of export restrictions by net food exporting countries was also mentioned. 11. Several Members urged a holistic approach, within the outcome on agriculture through the reform process mandated by Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and stressed the complementarity between the reform process and the food security goal. 12. Regarding the second question about how can MC13 best prepare the agriculture negotiations to achieve substantive outcomes, there were also divergences in Members’ positions. 13. For some Members, it may still be possible to have some key deliverables at MC13. However, several Members cautioned against heightened expectations given the wide divergences in Members’ positions on almost all the negotiating issues. They would therefore like MC13 to prepare the ground for intensive evidence-based negotiations thereafter with the expectation of reaching major outcomes at a later stage. In that regard, they believe that clear political guidance should be provided by Ministers at MC13. While some Members were of the view that it was important to distinguish among the negotiating issues, many others also stressed the need for a comprehensive, balanced and holistic outcome on agriculture and food security at MC13. In short, the summary by the DG and GC chair seemed to be replete with constructive ambiguities and failed to provide a clear picture on how things need to be addressed in the next four months. It is important to avoid a top-down approach to the deliverables for MC13 and work wholly on the basis of a bottom-up framework, said several trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
