|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct24/16) Geneva, 18 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — A proposed decision by the World Trade Organization’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, to establish “a formal process under CoA SS (Committee on Agriculture in Special Session)” appears to have caused unease among several members and has raised more questions about the integrity of the process, said people familiar with the development. Members are trying to understand the implications of a formal process as well as the appointment of facilitators, as meetings of the Doha negotiating body on agriculture are held informally as per normal convention, said people familiar with the development. The Doha negotiating body on agriculture, also referred to as the CoA SS, operates under the overall mandate of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC). The DG is planning to convene a Heads of Delegation (HoD) meeting on 21 October to discuss the concerns raised by members (see below). She is also hosting a “green room” meeting on 18 October, apparently to dissuade the members of the Group of 10 (G10) farm-defensive countries, including Japan, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, and the United Kingdom from pressing ahead with a facilitator on export restrictions, an issue that is being vehemently opposed by the Russian Federation, said people close to these groups. FORMAL PROCESS On the DG’s proposal to establish a formal process on agriculture, Ms Okonjo-Iweala issued a restricted document (Job/TNC/124), seen by the SUNS, to institutionalize the process, said people familiar with the development. In paragraph five of her proposal, the DG said: “I want to emphasize immediately that what we are proposing is a formal process under CoA SS – not an informal process.” “That is why I convened this TNC to make it clear that if we agree today, this is a TNC-blessed formal process under the CoA SS,” she said. “As you know, we do not want to waste our time (before the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference to be held in Cameroon next year while the dates are yet to be announced) arguing on what type of process it is – that is why I am making this kind of emphasis so that once we agree, we can move on.” Citing the comments made by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, at the formal TNC meeting on 10 October, the DG said, “the process does not prevent Members from engaging in parallel discussions in various formats to complement and feed into this process.” According to the DG, “We have cross-cutting issues that have to do with transparency, sustainability – with Brazil leading an effort on this matter, environment and other issues.” She continued, “If Members wish to engage on cross-cutting issues in parallel, they are welcome” and “we will also help to support that.” Interestingly, the Doha mandate on agriculture does not specify cross-cutting issues, a novel idea proposed by Brazil and other members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, and actively supported by the DG – allegedly to merely “confound” the negotiations, said several people familiar with the DG’s remarks. Nevertheless, the DG went on to reiterate several benchmarks made at the formal TNC meeting held on 10 October. The benchmarks include: “a. Two weeks after this meeting, I hope we can nominate Facilitators for the Dedicated Sessions on PSH [public stockholding] and SSM [special safeguard mechanism]; domestic support; market access; export competition; export restrictions; and cotton. b. At the beginning of November until Winter Break, the CoA SS Chair will put in place Facilitators, help establish groups and announce the start of the Facilitator-led process. c. At the start of 2025 until Summer Break of 2025, we will try to make as much progress as possible in the Facilitator-led processes on the various issues with regular reporting to the CoA SS for transparency purposes. d. After the Summer Break of 2025, the work and outcomes in the Facilitator-led processes will be brought to the CoA SS for negotiation.” She said: “This is the process and the timelines that we are putting before you to agree on. I want to be specific on what we are trying to get at in this meeting. This is our best shot on delivering in agriculture at MC14. If we cannot even reach an understanding on a process, I think that is a little bit irresponsible on our part.” “As for my part,” she said, “I intend to accord as much time, importance and priority to agriculture in the coming weeks and months – but that depends on you.” She cautioned members that “if I do not detect the will to make progress, then I will also not spend the time on it.” “But if you are willing to make progress, then we can spend as much time as necessary to drive these things. I hope you will think of Facilitators that you can nominate – or whether you yourself want to be part and parcel of it,” she said. MOUNTING CONCERNS Several members seem to reckon that the DG’s decision to establish a formal process under the CoA SS appears to have a hidden agenda to allegedly “confound” the agriculture negotiations with the help of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, said people familiar with the development. “While giving a short shrift to the mandated issues, such as the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries, in clubbing it together with other issues, the DG is not apparently coming clean,” said people who asked not to be quoted. The DG’s move appears to have raised doubts as to what would happen if there is no chair for the Doha agriculture negotiating body, as the current chair from Turkiye is set to complete his term soon and could be recalled by his government, said people familiar with the negotiations. The moot issue is will the DG then take over the process to conduct the negotiations in an allegedly partisan way, asked one trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. More importantly, at the TNC meeting on 10 October, several members including Russia, Mozambique on behalf of the African Group, India, and Indonesia raised specific concerns on the way in which a small-group meeting was conducted at the agriculture chair’s residence and on appointing facilitators, said people familiar with the discussions. The DG wants to appoint facilitators for the “Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM; domestic support; market access; export competition; export restrictions; and cotton.” By clubbing together all these issues, which have a sequential order, the DG is allegedly overturning the mandated issues while downgrading the sanctity of the mandates, said people familiar with the development. India appears to have raised concerns over giving parity to all the six issues on an equal footing, while each one of them has specific timelines to be concluded as per the previous ministerial mandates starting from the WTO’s tenth ministerial conference (MC10) held in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015. That meeting set a deadline for finalizing the permanent solution on PSH and SSM by the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017. However, the draft chair’s report of the minister-facilitator, Ms Amina Mohamed, the former Kenyan minister, was blocked by the US at the meeting, said people familiar with the discussions. Repeated refusals by the US and the Cairns Group to agree on the permanent solution on PSH and on SSM has eroded confidence in the WTO, said people who asked not to be quoted. At MC13 in Abu Dhabi earlier this year, which failed to deliver any breakthroughs on several issues, there was allegedly a face-off between the Indian trade minister Piyush Goyal and the DG over the issue of PSH during the wee hours of the concluding session on 1 March, said people familiar with the discussions. When the DG was allegedly actively championing the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) during a “green room” meeting of select trade ministers at MC13, the Indian trade minister requested the DG to broker a compromise on PSH, said people familiar with the discussions. In a seemingly sharp response, the DG told the Indian minister that it is not her business to find a compromise and that it is for the members to negotiate the issue, said people familiar with the discussions. Seemingly upset by the DG’s response, the Indian trade minister was understood to have warned that there will not be any outcome on agriculture for the next 100 years until the WTO delivers on a permanent solution on PSH, said people familiar with the discussions. Regardless of these developments, in establishing a formal process on agriculture, Ms Okonjo-Iweala appears to be repeating the same old process while expecting different results, which has seemingly raised more questions than answers over her proposed game-plan, said people familiar with the discussions. HoD MEETING The DG is convening a Heads of Delegation meeting on 21 October ostensibly “to answer the questions posed with respect to the path forward of the negotiations on agriculture.” In her email (ICN/TNC/9) sent to trade envoys on 16 October, seen by the SUNS, the DG wrote: “To this end, Members who posed questions at the TNC (on 10 October) are strongly encouraged to attend this meeting.” “For transparency purposes, all other Members are also invited to participate if they so wish. It is my hope that, through this discussion, Members will have further clarity on the purpose and the organization of the facilitator- led process as the path forward.” Ahead of the HoD meeting on 21 October, the DG appears to be convening a “green room” meeting of the G10 countries, including Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom among others to persuade them to lower their agenda on export restrictions, an issue on which Russia does not want any facilitator-led process, said people close to these two groups. In conclusion, the DG’s decision to establish a formal process for agriculture instead of an agreement-bound informal process that has been followed by the Doha negotiating body on agriculture has not only seemingly raised more questions but has also cast doubts on the integrity of the process, said people familiar with the discussions. +
|
||
