|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr24/07) Geneva, 3 Apr (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, plans to jumpstart the stalled negotiations on agriculture on 16 April, following the major failure to reach any agreement on agriculture at the World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) that concluded last month in Abu Dhabi. In an email sent to members, the chair said, “the main purpose of this meeting is to allow Members to take stock of the agriculture negotiations and deliberate on the way forward.” “In this context,” he said, “this meeting of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture will be considered as a joint meeting with the Dedicated Sessions on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (PSH) and on the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM).” However, the proverbial wounds from the failed MC13 on agriculture still seem raw and appear difficult to heal anytime soon. More so, several important nations are holding their national elections this year where agriculture remains a major issue. It may appear somewhat insane to repeat the same thing again and expect different results, after MC13 witnessed tense negotiations, amidst inflexible positions adopted by key members, particularly among the group of eight countries in a “green room” meeting. Ideally, the chair ought to have stepped aside, as was the case with some of his illustrious predecessors like Ambassador Stuart Harbinson of Hong Kong-China (after the failed MC5 in Cancun, Mexico in September 2003), in order to create a fresh impetus in the negotiations with some innovative ideas, said people familiar with the negotiations. If that is not possible, the chair could have at least issued a paper on where things went wrong from his own perspective in the run-up to MC13 and at the Abu Dhabi meeting, as he had participated in every open-ended as well as “green room” meeting along with the minister-facilitator, Rebecca Miano, Cabinet Secretary at the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry of Kenya. Such a paper would have raised a frank discussion among members on how things need to be turned around in agriculture, which has become a victim of the intransigent positions adopted by several countries since MC10 in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, said a former trade envoy who took part in the agriculture negotiations at MC11 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017. To expect that key members will change their often-stated positions may seem rather far-fetched now, the envoy said. AGRICULTURE CHAIR’S REPORT In his report to the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 21 March, Ambassador Acarsoy expressed disappointment over “the absence of an outcome on agriculture at MC13.” Following the advice from the TNC chair and WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Ambassador Acarsoy said that “we should focus on the positives. In particular, Members succeeded in generating a text that was presented to Ministers as a basis for discussion.” Citing the work done in the run-up to MC13, the chair commended members, saying that “we have done a lot of work and we have a basis on which we can build.” He said that “the key issues that need to be tackled are well known.” However, he did not spell out what these “key issues” are and how they can be tackled. “But we also need to reflect on the causes of the persisting stalemate, with a view to finding the most efficient way to resume the negotiations without falling again in the same traps,” the chair emphasized. In global trade negotiations, positions are based on the material interests of a participating country, and more importantly on a give-and-take basis, which seems like a mirage now. In his report, the chair said that members “may think that we have a lot of time, but we do not consider the nature of the issues that have to be resolved. I need not remind Members that the negotiations started in 2000.” Instead of “pussyfooting” around the general remarks, the chair should have thrown some light on the recurring stalemates from his vantage point in the negotiations as well as in the closed-door “green room” meetings, said people familiar with the negotiations. Also, he ought to have spoken his mind on the status of the mandated issues in the negotiations, as several countries reckon that the mandates are dynamic and that the goalposts can be shifted without prior consent, said people who asked not to be quoted. DG’S REPORT In her intervention at the TNC meeting on 21 March, as highlighted in restricted document Job/GC/390, the DG said that she shared the sentiments and ideas expressed by the agriculture chair. Ms Okonjo-Iweala said that “it was encouraging that for the first time in a very long time – despite Members’ political sensitivities, you were working off a common text.” Common texts were pursued after the failed ministerial meetings in the past, including in 2009 and even after MC10 in 2015. However, these texts were unable to bring about results. Instead of coming to terms with the failure of MC13 on the issue of agriculture, the DG said, “While we fell short, we should keep our hopes up.” “I think we came close to charting a course for reforming our agriculture rule-book,” she said, adding, “I hope Ambassadors will work with Ambassador Acarsoy to chart a way forward.” She reiterated the chair’s appeal “to you not to start from scratch but build on the work done thus far as captured in the Chair’s State of Play document to set out a credible framework for these negotiations to produce results.” It is well-known that “positive” and “feel-good” comments often make a trivial difference in the negotiations where countries assess their positions on dollar-and-cent gains and losses, said people involved in the negotiations. At the TNC meeting, the DG observed that “MC13 also confirmed what we have all known – that adopting a lose-lose negotiating posture is not conducive to results. It not only hinders progress, but fundamentally impacts the credibility of our negotiating function and the credibility of you as Ambassadors. In Abu Dhabi, we seemed to run out of time on certain matters – “not because of insufficient time” – but because of the tactic I just described.” The DG should have thrown more light on these so-called “lose-lose” positions adopted by members, as stalemates tend to occur when either mandates are not respected or when some members refuse to run down previous results. The DG said that “the work-streams our chairs are preparing to lead, like any WTO process, are only as good as what Members make of it,” adding that “everyone needs to be equally committed to supporting the work of our Chairs with constructive inputs and a real willingness to negotiate.” However, it is moot if the chairs produce “prejudiced ideas” to ensure that the results are not inimical to the interests of some dominant members in the negotiations, said people familiar with the negotiations. Meanwhile, in her opinion piece, titled “WTO Reform is Everyone’s Responsibility”, published in Project Syndicate on 28 March, the DG made some critical observations on agriculture, following the failed MC13. She said: “Likewise, a complex mix of alliances was evident during the negotiations on agricultural reform. While a united bloc of mostly developing countries called for deep cuts in developed countries’ agricultural subsidies, clear divisions appeared among emerging markets regarding “public stockholding” – the practice of purchasing agricultural goods, often at fixed prices, to bolster domestic food security – and its potential effects on trade. These differences stymied efforts to move forward on outstanding agriculture negotiations, which unfortunately led some members to block an agreement further restricting harmful fisheries subsidies.” The above observation by the DG, particularly on “public stockholding”, appears rather incongruous, as it was already agreed in the interim solution on PSH or the Bali “peace clause” at MC9 in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013. That decision allowed for market price support programs for food security in developing countries with requisite safeguards. It also stipulated that the interim solution/mechanism will be in place until a permanent solution is negotiated for all developing countries. At MC13, attempts were made to divide the developing countries on the issue of the permanent solution on PSH. Such attempts only led to a stalemate and it is now time for some “soul-searching” on this issue so as to make progress in the agriculture negotiations in the coming months until MC14, said people, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
