|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct24/19) Geneva, 23 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s Director-General on 22 October stepped up her efforts to appoint facilitators by circulating “responses to main questions raised by members on the way forward in the agriculture negotiations”, essentially adopting the seemingly questionable method of detecting “convergence” rather than “consensus”, which has been the cardinal principle for decision-making among the 166 WTO members, said people familiar with the discussions. In her covering letter sent to members late on 22 October along with her revised answers, seen by the SUNS, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said that “we would like to underscore that this process is aimed at assisting Members to return – as soon as possible – to a fruitful [substantive] negotiation progress and to break the current logjam that has prevented Members from achieving concrete outcomes since 2015.” The DG, however, did not explain how this process would break the “current logjam” in the Doha agriculture negotiations where the United States and the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries have repeatedly blocked since 2015 any outcome on the mandated issues, namely, the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) and cotton, said people familiar with the discussions. Further, it is rather unclear how the current method of introducing a facilitator-led process will change things on the ground when the DG has conceded that for the past nine years one major country has blocked any movement in the agriculture negotiations in order to protect the concerns of its powerful farm lobbies who are strongly opposed to the permanent solution for PSH and SSM, said negotiators, who asked not to be quoted. The joint letter sent by the DG and the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiating body, also referred to as the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS), Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, said, “we hope that all Members will give this process a chance, given that the current impasse in the COA Special Session and its Dedicated Sessions does not serve any Member’s interest.” During the informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 21 October, Ambassador Acarsoy had said that “there is no progress during the past two years in the negotiations.” In contrast to his illustrious predecessors like Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China), Tim Groser (New Zealand), Crawford Falconer (New Zealand), David Walker (New Zealand), and Vangelis Vitalis (New Zealand) among others, the current chair is apparently not clued into the granular detail and dynamics of the agriculture negotiations, said several trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. Consequently, he apparently failed to navigate the negotiations over the last two years by issuing a draft text on one day and another draft text the following day, allegedly contradicting everything he had said on the same issue, said people familiar with the CoA-SS meetings. Now that he is leaving Geneva soon, members are asking whether the DG will assume his position to oversee the facilitator-led process, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. It remains unclear how the new “way forward”, which is being pushed by the DG without consensus among the members, will change the dynamics in the agriculture negotiations, said people who asked not to be quoted. REVISED “RESPONSES” In addition to the joint letter, the DG also circulated to members on 22 October a two-page revised “responses to main questions raised by members on the way forward in the agriculture negotiations”, seen by the SUNS. The Q&A is highlighted verbatim below as per the document sent to members on 22 October: 1. Would the process imply some sequencing among topics and what would be the relationship between the topics under negotiations and cross-cutting issues? Answer: The process is meant to facilitate the work of the CoA-SS. It will respect the existing mandates (with a qualification that “the mandates stemming from the Agreement on Agriculture and relevant Decisions and Declarations can be found on: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_e.htm). 2. Question on cross-cutting issues? Answer: A similar facilitator-led track would be put in place for cross-cutting issues, covering notably food security, sustainability and transparency. 3. What would be the purpose of the facilitators’ led process? Answer: The process should be regarded as a “pre-negotiation” phase to iron out issues standing in the way of negotiations. Its purpose would be to facilitate engagement among Members on the different topics under negotiations in a focused and interactive manner with a view to articulating a pathway forward and helping to rebuild trust. This could include holding topic-by-topic thematic sessions, thus laying the groundwork for further progress and engagement in text-based negotiations in the CoA-SS and its dedicated sessions. Some topic-by-topic thematic sessions, held by a pre-announced schedule, could also take place during the CoA-SS and its dedicated sessions. Members may also consider the possibility for periodic engagement of Senior Officials to address the most sensitive issues. 4. What would be the role of the facilitators and how would they be selected? Answer: The role of facilitators would be to facilitate discussions within the Working Group under their responsibility with a view to making progress in the negotiations. In the interest of transparency, the facilitators would report periodically to the CoA-SS and dedicated sessions meetings. The whole process would remain under the responsibility and supervision of the CoA-SS chair. Regarding the selection of facilitators, the chair would invite all delegations to propose delegates for consideration for appointment. Once nominations are received, the CoA-SS chair will consult with the Members with a view to agreeing on a slate of names as facilitators. As a general rule, it is envisaged to appoint two facilitators overseeing as appropriate the following: * PSH, SSM and Cotton. * Domestic Support. * Market Access. * [Export competition, Export restrictions, other issues, this grouping is subject to further discussions among key stakeholders]. * Cross-cutting issues – food security, sustainability and transparency. 5. How to ensure inclusiveness and transparency” Answer: The discussion groups would be open to all interested members to ensure inclusiveness. In addition, facilitators would provide regular reports on their activities to the CoA-SS and meetings of the Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM to ensure transparency. 6. How to address capacity constraints of small delegations and would Capital-based officials be involved? Answer: Working Groups’ meetings would be organized in a sequenced manner to avoid overlap, also taking into account, as far as possible, other WTO meetings. Working Groups would be organized in a hybrid format if Members so request to ensure broad participation, including by capital-based officials. The frequency of meetings will be decided by the facilitators in consultation with Members and the CoA-SS Chair. It would take into account the specificity of each topic, including past mandates and previous work undertaken, while ensuring balance across the board. 7. How would the WTO Secretariat support the process? Answer: The WTO Secretariat would provide logistical support to the facilitators, including room bookings and preparing papers upon request. It would also be willing upon request to organize seminars to give Members an opportunity to listen to and exchange with external high-level experts on topics of interest. SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS Many developing and least-developed countries seemingly opposed the DG’s proposed plan on the way forward, expressing concern over the revised answers on grounds that they not only allegedly undermine the sanctity of the mandates, they also go against the mandate of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), said several people who asked not to be quoted. At a time when the current TNC is operating under the Doha mandate, which has not been dismantled in any of the previous ministerial meetings, it appears rather inappropriate and somewhat inconsistent to start the facilitator-led process with a new mandate under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), said people familiar with the discussions. Further, the Doha mandate on agriculture was negotiated to address concerns in accordance with Article 20 of the AoA. Consequently, the DG’s proposed facilitator-led process is apparently going to create a new mandate by discarding the previous ministerial mandates on PSH, SSM, and cotton, said people familiar with the discussions. Earlier, the chair of the WTO’s General Council (GC), Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, used the notion of “convergence” as the basis for starting the DG appointment process, and now the DG seems to be employing the same tactic in allegedly consigning the mandated issues “to the backburner”, said people familiar with the discussions. In short, while the proposed facilitator-led process, on the face of it seems rather innocuous, it could severely undermine the key concerns of the developing and least-developed countries, such as India, Indonesia, and those from Africa, in an irreversible way, said people who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
