|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun24/12) Geneva, 21 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — Sharp divisions came to the fore at an informal meeting convened by Brazil at the World Trade Organization on 18 June on discussions over the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, with one country having said that there is no “legitimacy” to the informal process, said people familiar with the development. The informal meeting appears to have been embroiled in procedural issues, after India challenged the “legitimacy” of the process, said people familiar with the development. At the informal meeting on 18 June, the differences between Brazil and India came into the open on the “legitimacy” of the process that allegedly runs parallel to the mandated negotiations in the Doha agriculture negotiating body. India is understood to have said that 30 percent of the membership are not part of the discussions, and that the process allegedly lacked legitimacy, said people familiar with the development. In response, Brazil questioned the Indian claim centred around the issue of “legitimacy”, saying that India is questioning the “legitimacy” of all the processes being conducted at the WTO, said people who asked not to be quoted. China supported the Brazilian informal process on several grounds, insisting that the informal process has already been backed by many members. Aside from China’s support, members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries as well as some South American members – Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador, and Bolivia – of the G33 group of developing countries continue to support the Brazilian process. Within the 40-plus-members of the G33 group of developing countries drawn from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean regions, there is almost no support for the Brazilian proposal and many of the group’s members have hardly engaged in the discussions until now, said a G33 member, who asked not to be quoted. Although Indonesia, the coordinator of the G33, did not make any statement at the informal meetings held by Brazil, it made the group’s position quite clear in the very first meeting on 31 May, the member said. According to that statement made on 31 May, Indonesia said that “we maintain that all negotiations must be undertaken within the Committee on Agriculture Special Session (CoASS). In fact, this Committee was set up exactly for such a purpose.” “This view is hardly exclusive to the G33. This same message has been heard loud and clear from many other Members in previous deliberations, most recently during the GC (General Council) meeting last week,” Indonesia said. While the G33 “recognizes Members’ rights to convene informally to deliberate on any proposal, however, we must not create a parallel negotiating process that potentially replaces, bypasses, and undermines the CoASS,” Indonesia said. Indonesia cautioned that “such process may set a bad precedent and have a systemic implication on the very credibility and relevance of the CoASS itself and the Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC).” It said that “the vast majority of the G33 Members are, therefore, rightfully concerned with this informal consultation process, and believe taking the negotiations outside the CoASS is not the solution that we need.” Further, Indonesia said breaking the deadlock in the stalled Doha agriculture negotiations “requires compromises from all Members, especially from the few privileged ones who would otherwise benefit from a status quo. There should also be a proper acknowledgement of Members’ legitimate food security challenges.” The G33 said: “Playing field must be leveled. Special and Differential Treatment for developing Members must be preserved. Longstanding Ministerial mandates must be fulfilled.” Interestingly, China is a member of the G33 group and a strong proponent of a permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, yet it has chosen to side with Brazil as it did on several other issues like “responsible consensus”, as proposed by Singapore and Norway among others. Despite many developing countries having disregarded the proposal on “responsible consensus”, the WTO General Council chair, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, appears to be reverting to the proposal in a proposed General Council retreat to be convened on 8 July, said people familiar with the development. Against this backdrop, the one thing that seems to have emerged during the discussions convened by Brazil on its proposal is that there is little or no consensus/appetite for the informal process on agriculture being conducted by Brazil outside the purview of the negotiating sessions on agriculture. Ironically, Brazil had championed the Group of 20 developing countries during the Doha agriculture negotiations at the WTO in 2003-2008, to oppose the United States-European Union’s proposals on agriculture. However, several industrialized countries including the US and the United Kingdom, as well as China seem to be the solid backers of the Brazilian informal process, said a developing country trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. An agriculture analyst, who was a former negotiator, said that while some industrialized countries like the US approve of the informal discussions on the Brazilian proposal, privately, they consider that nothing would come out of these discussions. At the meeting on 18 June, Brazil sought to discuss its proposal pertaining to public stockholding programs for food security. In its proposal (WT/GC/W/931) that was circulated on 8 April, Brazil chose to delete the first option on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, as contained in the revised WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) draft agriculture text. In the draft revised text, two options were on the table for trade ministers to consider in a “green room” meeting at MC13 in Abu Dhabi. The two options were: “21. [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 21. [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 commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in Dedicated Sessions of the CoA-SS. A permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes shall be available to all developing country Members. Public stockholding programmes shall not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. Members will agree on the elements and the methodology of implementation of the reform according to the Timeline of Implementation section below.]” However, Brazil removed the first option and instead proposed new language on the permanent solution on PSH in paragraph 19 of its proposal. Paragraph 19 states: “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 commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in Dedicated Sessions of the CoA-SS. The negotiations on PSH should pay particular attention to the needs of LDCs and NFIDCs. A permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes shall be available to all developing country Members. Public stockholding programmes shall not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. Members will agree on the elements and the methodology of implementation of the reform according to the Timeline of Implementation section below.” As previously reported in the SUNS, in a “green room” meeting at MC13 attended by the WTO’s Director- General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, India had said that if there is no permanent solution on PSH at MC13 as per the first option in the draft agriculture text (WT/MIN (24)/W/13), there would not be any outcome in agriculture. The Brazilian proposal is unlikely to be accepted by the G33 members as a way forward for further progress in the agriculture negotiations, said a person familiar with the negotiations. Apparently, there were no substantive discussions on Brazil’s ideas on PSH at the informal meeting on 18 June, and it remains to be seen how the discussions will continue in the coming days. It appears that Brazil has cancelled a meeting that it had scheduled for 24 June, said people familiar with the discussions. TIMELINES In its draft decision, Brazil proposed the following timelines for implementation: * In order to achieve tangible progress and concrete outcomes, Members instruct the CoA-SS Chair to provide, based on Members’ contributions, annual negotiating schedules to discuss all aspects, including the elements and the methodology, of each of the negotiating topics in this Decision. * The General Council shall regularly review progress in these negotiations. * Senior Officials will review the progress achieved in the negotiations one year after MC13, particularly in relation to the definition of the elements and the methodology of implementation of the reform and make recommendations for the way forward. * Members shall adopt an intermediate framework of the agreement 4 months before MC14. This framework shall provide a comprehensive view of the basic structures of the agreement or other outcomes to be delivered by MC14 and may include texts with different levels of maturity. * Members shall adopt a decision on modalities by MC14. * Modalities shall be implemented as a package taking into consideration the overall balance of outcomes in Agriculture in a timeframe to be decided by Members. With little progress in the informal discussions, it remains to be seen what Brazil will propose for the General Council to consider during its meeting before the summer break, said people who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
