|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb24/15) Geneva, 19 Feb (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, on 16 February issued a draft text for the consideration of trade ministers meeting in Abu Dhabi in just seven days’ time, seemingly causing resentment among several South American countries over its formulation on the issue of domestic support, said people familiar with the negotiations. After oscillating from one text to another in a matter of a few hours on 16 February following the “streamlining” discussions, the chair first circulated a draft text in which he proposed two options on domestic support. The chair first circulated his draft text (WT/MIN(24)/W/13) proposing either/or options on both domestic support and the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security (PSH). The two options mentioned on domestic support are as follows: “7. [Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on domestic support, including by discussing and analysing all forms of trade-distorting support, with a view to reducing substantially and progressively the most distorting forms of such support in a fair and equitable manner and improving disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. [Modalities shall be agreed and a decision adopted by MC14.]/[Members agree to work toward agreeing modalities at MC14.] 8. Members’ contributions to the reduction effort should take into account, inter alia, their global market participation, the needs of developing Members, and the interests of exporters and concerns of importers; and encourage a shift towards less trade-distorting forms of domestic support. Product specific concentration of support should also be considered. Modalities should reflect different treatment depending on the effects of the support provided. 9. These negotiations shall preserve the special and differential treatment of developing country Members and LDCs, including support to low-income or resource-poor farmers, as well as to encourage diversification from growing illicit crops. 10. Members are advised to provide the value of production data, including for specific products, in their DS:1 notifications to substantiate de minimis claims.]” OR [7. Pursuant to Article 20 of AoA, Members adopt the modalities set out in Annex […] to this Decision.]” After issuing the draft text, which was quickly downloaded by members, there was commotion as to how the chair could issue two options, said people familiar with the discussions. In about two hours after issuing the first draft, which was immediately pulled out from the WTO’s website, the chair issued a second text removing the above two options. Instead, Ambassador Acarsoy issued the following paragraphs on domestic support: 1. Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on domestic support, including by discussing and analysing all forms of trade-distorting support, with a view to reducing substantially and progressively the most distorting forms of such support in a fair and equitable manner and improving disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. [Modalities shall be agreed and a decision adopted by MC14.]/[Members agree to work toward agreeing modalities at MC14.] 2. Members’ contributions to the reduction effort should take into account, inter alia, their global market participation, the needs of developing Members, and the interests of exporters and concerns of importers; and encourage a shift towards less trade-distorting forms of domestic support. Product specific concentration of support should also be considered. Modalities should reflect different treatment depending on the effects of the support provided. 3. These negotiations shall preserve the special and differential treatment of developing country Members and LDCs, including support to low-income or resource-poor farmers, as well as to encourage diversification from growing illicit crops. 4. Members are advised to provide the value of production data, including for specific products, in their DS:1 notifications to substantiate de minimis claims. The chair committed a major faux pas, said a trade envoy, arguing that his second draft on domestic support seemed pretty weak and lacked ambition. Several South American countries appear to have felt that they were let down as their proposals for a substantive outcome appear to be stymied. Colombia, for instance, proposed a global ceiling on subsidies, substantive and proportionate reductions, progressively ending in 2030, said people familiar with the Colombian proposal made at the “streamlining” discussions on 16 February. Colombia sought a clear mention of its proposal in the text with an addition of an annex with such modalities. However, “our position on DS [domestic support] was canceled, deleted, censored, and ignored,” said another aggrieved South American delegate, who asked not to be quoted. MARKET ACCESS The US, which refused to provide market access for the Cotton-4 countries (Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Chad) on their most sought items during the “streamlining” discussions on 16 February, demanded market access from the LDCs for the same items, said a person who asked not to be quoted. Also, the US had pressed for parity between market access and domestic support in terms of the level of ambition. But the draft text on market access merely says: “5. Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on agricultural market access with a view to reducing substantially and progressively protection in a fair and equitable manner to improve market access opportunities for all Members and improving disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA and within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. [Modalities shall be agreed and a decision adopted by MC14.]/[Members agree to work towards achieving modalities by MC14.] 6. These negotiations may address tariff reduction and other elements, such as tariff simplification, tariff escalation, high tariffs and tariff peaks, tariff rate quotas, and special agricultural safeguards, taking into account exporting Members’ interests and importing Members’ sensitivities, including non-trade concerns. Technical discussions on relevant market access elements shall support these negotiations to facilitate a common understanding on the elements to be addressed and to facilitate Members’ effective participation in the negotiations.” It appears that the EU and the G10 farm-defensive countries protested over specificity in market access. Accordingly, the chair’s draft text has proposed that Members “may” address tariff reduction and other elements, said a trade negotiator, who asked not to be quoted. The language on export restrictions and prohibitions is also substantially weakened because of opposition from Russia, Argentina, and India among others. PSH On PSH, the chair stuck to his original draft, though, he moved the annex proposed by India to a place holder. At the “streamlining” discussions on 16 February, the US pressed for deleting the first option of concluding the permanent solution on PSH at Abu Dhabi. The either/or options on PSH are as follows: “28. [Pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members adopt a permanent solution as set out in Annex […] to this Decision.] OR 28. [Pursuant to Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members undertake to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in Dedicated Sessions of the CoA-SS and agree and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes by MC14, which shall be available to all developing country Members. Public stockholding programmes shall not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. 29. The negotiations for a permanent solution shall pay particular attention to the food security challenges of LDCs and NFIDCs, and consider all relevant issues, including domestic food security targets of the programmes; product coverage; safeguards and anti-circumvention, including with respect to exports; transparency; and legal certainty. They shall also consider the impact of inflation on calculations of the Aggregate Measurement of Support.] 30. [Taking into account the acute food security challenges and vulnerabilities of developing country Members, in particular LDCs [and NFIDCs], Members agree to extend, until [MC14], the Bali Interim Solution established by the Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913) and the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 (WT/L/939) to public stockholding programmes for food security purposes of LDCs [and NFIDCs that are net importers of the product concerned] enacted after 7 December 2013. The General Council shall regularly review progress in these negotiations.]” In short, the battle-lines are being drawn on agriculture at MC13 and it is likely to be another test of whether there will be substantial outcomes or no result at all like at MC11 and MC12, said people who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
