|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Sept24/11) Geneva, 20 Sep (D. Ravi Kanth) — Attempts by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations at the World Trade Organization to appoint facilitators and small groups on 18 September appeared to have failed due to doubts and suspicions raised over the exclusion of several members from a small-group meeting held earlier this month, said people familiar with the discussions. The United States apparently lamented that if members are not able to agree on the process, then how can anything be agreed in the stalled Doha agriculture negotiations, said several people who took part in the meeting. On a different note, Paraguay and Costa Rica seem to have raised extraneous issues on the decision (G/AG/3) adopted by the Committee on Agriculture in November 1995 concerning Net Food-Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), said people, who asked not to be quoted. Both Paraguay and Costa Rica seemingly questioned the reclassification process of the list of NFIDCs and LDCs even though they are not major donors, while donors like the US appeared to remain silent behind the scenes, said people familiar with the discussions. During a meeting of the Doha negotiating body on agriculture, also referred to as the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (COASS), on 18 September, the chair, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, presented a report following a small-group discussion that he held at his residence on 9 September, said people familiar with the discussions. The chair presented an oral note of his meetings with 12 or 13 countries that include the US, the European Union, China, India, Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Norway among others, said people familiar with the development. The chair urged members to step up their consultations that are currently taking place in parallel among several groups such as the Cairns Group of farm exporting countries, suggesting that more members could be added to such discussions as part of what he called “enhancing engagement outside the COASS”, said people familiar with the discussions. Ambassador Acarsoy suggested setting up a process as well as four groups for more targeted discussions. The four groups, he suggested, would take up targeted discussions on: market access; domestic support; public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security purposes and special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for developing countries; and export restrictions and export competition, said people familiar with the discussions. The chair also suggested four facilitators to oversee these discussions, though he did not put forward any names for conducting the targeted discussions, said people who asked not to be quoted. The term “small group” was mentioned, though it was not the intention of the chair in his remarks, as anybody could join in the discussions, which apparently angered Russia, said people who asked not to be quoted. Russia expressed its unhappiness over the small-group meeting held by the chair at his residence for which it was not invited. Moscow also indicated some distrust in the processes being conducted by the chair, said people familiar with the discussions. Later, India also raised several concerns over the discussions being held in small groups, while Korea said it is not supportive of such small-group discussions, said people familiar with the discussions. Nigeria is understood to have initially said that it was unhappy over the chair’s meeting at his residence, but later, after checking its email, it found that it was indeed invited, said people familiar with the discussions. In short, the plan announced by the chair “fell flat on the ground”, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. Though the chair allegedly attempted to shift the blame onto the members, there appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way he pursues issues, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. However, the so-called “Friends of the System” group, including the EU and some South American countries, who are seeking quick outcomes, appeared to be unhappy that despite the chair’s best efforts, things are not progressing, said people who asked not to be quoted. PSH & SSM During the meeting on PSH and SSM on 18 September, the positions of countries opposed to any outcome on the permanent solution for PSH and on SSM remained unchanged, said people familiar with the discussions. The fact that the discussions on these two issues ended within an hour clearly suggested that these issues are unlikely to be resolved as per the mandate agreed in 2015, said people familiar with the discussions. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE During the meeting, Brazil presented a proposal that called for discussions at the WTO on “trade measures that encourage sustainable practices”, instead of taking recourse to “protectionist or otherwise punitive trade measures”, said people familiar with the discussions. Earlier, it had proposed a “retreat in September 2024 on Sustainable Agriculture, in addition to identifying priorities and appointing a facilitator.” Brazil sought the General Council to oversee the discussions and report on progress, outside the COASS, said several people familiar with the discussions. Brazil’s five-page proposal (WT/GC/W/938), titled “Dialogue on Sustainable Agriculture in the Multilateral Trading System”, has raised several fundamental issues that have been seemingly buried in the Doha agriculture negotiations. “The sustainable agriculture paper is groundbreaking and allows members to have a serious and relevant forward-looking discussion on critical areas of interest for all WTO members, particularly developing countries,” a proponent of the proposal told the SUNS. Without naming the EU and other farm-defensive countries, Brazil pointed out that “ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) of non-tariff measures (NTMs) are much higher for agriculture than for other economic sectors, while for food products, in particular, AVEs of NTMs are on average almost three times higher than normal tariffs.” “Little to no attention has been given thus far to bringing together, in innovative negotiating formats, Members that are interested in creating trade-incentives for products meeting certain parameters of agriculture sustainability or produced in accordance with them,” Brazil observed in its proposal. Given the multiple challenges arising from climate change and with the sudden proliferation of trade policies guided by “environmental goals,” Brazil said that “these policies must make the benefits of inclusive and sustainable development extend to all, including communities in rural areas left behind.” “In other words,” said Brazil, “the effectiveness of the global response to environmental challenges requires building national social and economic capacities (“no farmer will go green if he is in the red”), narrowing the gap between developed and developing countries through increased and more effective international cooperation, coordination, trade, and rule-making.” Also, as the global population is expected to peak at 9.8 billion people in 2050, there is an urgent need to “improve levels of food and nutritional security worldwide,” Brazil maintained. More pertinently, it said “the commensurate boost in agriculture output has been made with marginal change in land use patterns in this period and relative decrease in participation on GHG emissions in comparison to other sectors.” In its proposal, Brazil has outlined a gamut of issues for further discussion: * Policies that support sustainable and productivity enhancing agricultural practices. * Policies that support strong, science-based institutional frameworks and research programs that facilitate innovation and adoption of new agricultural technologies. * Policies that result in over-production, overuse or misallocation of resources, market distortions, or other negative impacts, environmental or otherwise. * Policies that promote access to food for people in situation of food and nutritional insecurity while creating enabling conditions for family and small farmers or groups in a vulnerable situation to participate in and benefit from domestic food markets. * Policies and mechanisms for technology transfer to enhance food security, build agricultural resilience, and encourage or incentivize low-carbon climate-friendly agricultural practices. * Policies that give more favourable access to agricultural products produced with more sustainable methods. * Cooperation in the definition of environment-related parameters for agriculture with a view of mitigating fragmentation. Brazil said the issues listed above are not exhaustive but outline some of the challenges and opportunities that lie at the intersection of agriculture, trade, and environment. At the meeting, several members expressed support for discussing the Brazilian proposal, while Nigeria sought to know what Brazil is expecting from the discussions on its proposal, said people familiar with the discussions. +
|
||
