|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct24/15) Geneva, 17 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC), Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, on 16 October seemingly remained silent on the controversial issue of starting the selection process for the appointment of the next Director-General based on his perception of “convergence” and not “consensus”, despite several concerns raised by the United States, said people familiar with the development. It appears that the last GC meeting of the year (with no further GC meetings currently scheduled for either November or December) concluded on a rather bleak note with little or no progress on any of the key issues, namely, agriculture and the second phase of the proposed Fisheries Subsidies Agreement concerning subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, as well as mounting concerns over the ongoing discussions on the reform of the WTO’s dispute settlement system, said people familiar with the discussions. Worse still, the prospects for restoring the two-tier dispute settlement system by the end of the year are unlikely to be met, said people familiar with the development. Even the non-mandated issue concerning the proposed decision on incorporating the plurilateral Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement appears to have fallen apart, after India, South Africa and Namibia refused to join the consensus, said people familiar with the discussion. The continued silence of the GC chair on the DG appointment process, who did not mention the issue on the second day of the GC meeting on 16 October, appears to be a serious cause for concern as to how consensus- based decision-making is allegedly being set aside in order to promote “flawed processes”, said people familiar with the development. Even the US, which appears to have informally told the GC chair not to go ahead with the DG appointment process, did not mention the issue at the GC meeting on 16 October, said people who asked not to be identified. When asked in an email as to why the US remained silent on the DG appointment process and whether it was true that it informally threatened the GC chair to stop the process, the US trade envoy, Ambassador Maria Pagan, did not respond at the time of writing this article. At the beginning of the GC meeting on 16 October, the GC chair seems to have expressed concern over the protocols allegedly being breached concerning records of discussions following the “telltale” account of the unprecedented “outbursts” of the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, as reported in the SUNS, said people familiar with the discussions. BRAZIL OPENS “PANDORA’S BOX” As previously reported in the SUNS on the “confounding” discussions on the reform of the dispute settlement system (DSS), including the numerous “potholes” that seemingly appeared in the latest WTO confidential document on the proposed appeal/review mechanism that would replace the Appellate Body, several issues concerning accessibility and other elements came into the open at the GC meeting. Brazil raised some fundamental concerns not just on the issue of accessibility but also on other issues that have been mentioned in the confidential document. Brazil is understood to have introduced the item on DSS reform on the GC meeting agenda, suggesting that members must take responsibility and be accountable regarding the ministerial mandates. It argued that if members do not convey a sense of urgency in addressing this issue, the WTO, which is the custodian of the multilateral trading system, will suffer and the agreements that exist and those that may come in the future may disintegrate, said people familiar with the discussions. Brazil appears to have cautioned that in the absence of a robust dispute settlement system to ensure a strong enforcement function, multilateralism could suffer, and such a system would be detrimental to the interests of developing countries, said people familiar with the discussions. During the discussion, Brazil initially said that the accessibility issue is complicating the discussions, and more issues are getting onto the agenda and we all need to be realistic, said people familiar with the discussions. Later, in the face of questions raised on the issue of accessibility, Brazil is understood to have said that it did not say that accessibility to the DSS is not important. It asked accessibility to what, arguing that if the DSS is dysfunctional, there is little or no point in discussing the issue of accessibility. Brazil said members must fix the DSS first, pointing out that accessibility should not be a condition for fixing the system, said people familiar with the discussions. It indicated that some members are conditioning fixing the system by getting a litigation fund and resolving the issue of accessibility, said people familiar with the discussions. Intervening in the DSS discussion, South Africa appears to have called for a “well-functioning DSS, effective, rules-based and responsive to the interests of all members which should contain compulsory jurisdiction, robust appeal mechanism, impartial and independent adjudicators and issuance of timely and legally binding and enforceable rulings,” said people familiar with the discussions. While emphasizing the importance of accessibility, South Africa suggested that the proposals on the table “are a mixed bag and it will be very important that we assess them to determine whether they are necessary, beneficial in the short- and long-run, especially so for addressing the concerns that have been identified.” South Africa also cautioned against holding small-group meetings to accelerate the discussions, saying that “substance and process are interlinked, and we would appeal that the process must remain inclusive, transparent and ensure full member participation,” said people familiar with the discussions. As previously reported in the SUNS, many members want the discussions to be accelerated on the crucial Part C of the 19-page WTO confidential document dealing with the “form of the mechanism”, said people familiar with the discussions. Several members appear to have expressed sharp concern over the lack of progress on other elements, such as “scope of the mechanism”, and “standard of review” among others. Several developing countries, including Egypt, India, Chad for the African Group, and South Africa, highlighted the importance of accessibility. Given the basket of difficult issues on the reform of the DSS, the prospects of reaching a decision on restoring the two-tier dispute settlement system by the end of the year appear almost impossible, said people familiar with the discussions. On another agenda item discussed at the GC meeting, namely, on practical steps to enhance the process for the appointment of chairs to WTO bodies (a proposal tabled by Canada, Chile and Singapore), several countries emphasized the need for consensus-based decision-making, said people familiar with the discussions. CALL FOR A RETREAT Meanwhile, Brazil requested the General Council and the WTO Secretariat to convene a retreat on its proposal, “Dialogue on Sustainable Agriculture in the Multilateral Trading System”. Brazil’s five-page proposal (WT/GC/W/938) has raised several fundamental issues that have been seemingly buried in the Doha agriculture negotiations. 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 mis-allocation of resources, market distortions, or other negative impacts, environmental or otherwise. * Policies that promote access to food for people in situations 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. +
|
||
