|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct24/07) Geneva, 10 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, in her mandated role as chair of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), is convening a formal TNC meeting on 10 October seemingly to compel members to agree on “a way forward in the agriculture negotiations, which are grid-locked” and on the “appointment of facilitators”, despite continued concerns over the allegedly biased outcomes delivered by facilitators in the recent past, said people familiar with the development. Earlier, the Russian Federation and India expressed serious concerns over the way in which small-group meetings were convened and conducted without their participation, said people familiar with the development. Further, instead of convening an informal TNC meeting where members’ comments are not recorded, as the convention goes, the DG seems to be in a hurry to secure an outcome on the way forward in the agriculture negotiations through the use of facilitators, said people familiar with the development. The WTO has seemingly failed to deliver on the two mandated issues in agriculture, namely, the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security purposes in developing countries and the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) since 2015. At the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) held in Abu Dhabi earlier this year, the Indian trade minister Mr Piyush Goyal reportedly warned that there will be no way forward in the agriculture negotiations without delivering on the permanent solution on PSH, as mandated at the WTO’s 10th ministerial conference (MC10) held in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015. Against this backdrop, the DG’s email (ICN/TNC/8/Rev.1) sent to members on 3 October, seen by the SUNS, contains the following appeal: “All TNC Participants to bear in mind the urgency of unlocking the prolonged negotiating deadlock given the consequences of gridlock to our people’s food security, their livelihoods, and our organization.” The DG said that she is “convinced that together, we can find a credible path for negotiation that leads to concrete outcomes soon,” without suggesting whether the mandated issues will be accorded precedence over other issues, said people familiar with the development. At the last meeting of the Doha negotiating body on agriculture on 18 September, there was no consensus among the members on whether small-group meetings should be held and whether facilitators should be appointed, after Russia and India raised several concerns, said people familiar with the development. In the email sent to members, the DG drew attention to the communication of the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, to Members on 30 September in document ICN/AG/ TN/20. CHAIR’S REPORT In the restricted report (ICN/AG/TN/20), seen by the SUNS, Ambassador Acarsoy shared his views following his meeting with some 20 countries at his residence and also “consultations at the COA-SS [Committee on Agriculture in Special Session] meeting and the Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM on 18 September 2024 and subsequent consultations, including with the Director-General.” Several members, however, expressed concern over the small-group meeting at his residence, as they were not invited, said people familiar with the development. Nevertheless, the chair shared his views, saying that “there is convergence of views among Members on the need to resume the negotiations after the setbacks at MC13 and the July General Council meeting, with a view to strengthening the agriculture sector and enabling it to deal effectively with contemporary challenges, including food insecurity, climate change and environmental concerns, and economic and social development.” He said: “The Agreement on Agriculture entered into force three decades ago, but the agricultural trade landscape has in the meantime changed significantly, warranting the adoption of new and effective rules.” The second observation by the chair is that Members agree on the need to rebuild trust, without which it would be difficult to make progress in the negotiations. “For some Members,” the chair noted, “it is essential for past mandates to be fulfilled, while for others trust can be restored if Members looked beyond their interests and accommodated other Members’ genuine priorities such as food security or sustainability.” The chair’s third observation is that “there is agreement among Members that we need to do things differently, otherwise we cannot expect different results.” The chair argued that “the injection of new ideas into the negotiating process is essential in the development of cutting-edge rules that would underpin global agricultural trade in the foreseeable future.” “The WTO’s credibility depends on delivering results in agreed mandates starting with the Doha work program on agriculture, and subsequent work on modalities,” said several people who asked not to be quoted. Issues addressed in the “Davos-type” of public forum discussions have little or no relevance to the hard negotiations where give-and-take trade-offs are imperative, said people familiar with the discussions. Without naming the members, the chair said that “the need for milestones on the road to MC14 was stressed and supported by several Members.” “This would enable Members to take stock of the status of the negotiations and focus more on the intractable issues which hold up progress,” the chair said. STRUCTURE FOR TALKS The chair wants members to quickly agree on a structure for the negotiations in order to engage in substantive and interactive discussions in the coming months to overcome well-known persisting divergences and prepare the ground for a meaningful outcome at MC14. Incidentally, the dates for MC14, which is scheduled to be hosted by Cameroon in early 2025, have so far not been finalized. The chair said that “based on what I have heard so far during my consultations and at the CoA-SS meeting, Members appear to coalesce around two options”. He said: “The first is that Members should be encouraged to form groups in different configurations to discuss specific negotiating issues. In that regard, reference was made to the discussions between the African Group and the Cairns Group on domestic support and public stockholding. Under this scenario, the discussions would be led by proponents who will engage with non-proponents and other Members and explore possible compromises. The Members participating in these groupings would be providing periodic reports to the CoA-SS.” “The second is for me, as CoA-SS Chair, to appoint Facilitators for the various negotiating issues who will report periodically to me and the CoA-SS on the progress being made. It was noted that one advantage of this option is that it would help to ensure that work is taking place across the board in an inclusive and transparent manner, allowing the CoA-SS to effectively monitor and assess progress.” “Members will, of course, have the possibility to meet in parallel in various configurations and feed their ideas and proposals into the Facilitators’ processes,” the chair said in his email. The chair said “the need for the Facilitators to be neutral was stressed by some Members and that their meetings should be coordinated to allow for the participation of small delegations.” “Based on my consultations,” said Ambassador Acarsoy, “I think we could consider appointing Facilitators for the Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM; domestic support; market access; export competition; export restrictions; and cotton. Cross-cutting issues such as food security, sustainability and transparency may be addressed in parallel by Members following an approach to be decided at a later stage, he added. The chair said the “Facilitators, working under my supervision as CoA-SS Chair, and in close collaboration with Members, [are] to decide on how best to move forward on the issues covered under the respective workstreams.” As regards “the selection of Facilitators,” the chair said that “members would have the option of volunteering themselves or someone else as a Facilitator” and “depending on the nature of the subject, we could envisage having two Facilitators.” Privately, several members said the idea of appointing facilitators for each topic may not deliver meaningful results, as invariably, issues are given priority to those countries that have considerable influence in the discussions through alleged “arm-twisting”, said people who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
