|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec24/03) New Delhi, 6 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — Many developing countries on 4 December supported a proposal for prioritizing the unresolved mandated issues in agriculture such as the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security in developing countries, the special safeguard mechanism (SSM), and cotton through text-based negotiations at the World Trade Organization, said people familiar with the development. However, the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries led by Australia, the farm-defensive countries like the European Union, and the Group of 10 (G10) countries led by Switzerland are understood to have maintained that all issues in agriculture are linked, implying that the unresolved mandated issues cannot be treated on a stand-alone basis as per the past ministerial mandates, said people familiar with the development. In a similar vein, the United States opposed the prioritization of certain issues over others, citing this as the cause of the longstanding stalemate in agriculture. “Pretty much everything under the sun has been tried and failed,” it said, adding that “prioritizing (certain topics over others) is not engagement.” At a meeting of the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS) on 4 December, where the agriculture negotiations are taking place, the contrasting positions between a large group of developing countries on the one side, and the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, and the farm-defensive countries on the other, revealed the continuing tensions, said farm negotiators who preferred not to be quoted. A day before the CoA-SS meeting, on 3 December, Guyana tabled a restricted proposal (Job/AG/264) on “Moving Agriculture Negotiations Forward”. The two-page proposal, seen by the SUNS, suggested a way forward on how to break the “gridlock” to advance the agriculture negotiations that are currently stuck over process-related issues. Coming days ahead of a formal meeting of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 12 December, the Guyanese proposal reaffirmed the 27 November 2014 General Council Decision “to pursue negotiations on a permanent solution on public stockholding programs for food security purposes as a priority and to agree and adopt a permanent solution by December 2015 and these negotiations be held in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS) in distinct dedicated sessions and in an accelerated timeframe”. The proposal also reaffirmed the 2015 Nairobi ministerial decision on a special safeguard mechanism, as well as other decisions. In light of the lack of consensus on the process, including the Director-General Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s proposal to appoint facilitators on the basis of “convergence”, and her revised answers to questions on 4 November, Guyana proposed the following options: 1. The issues of PSH, SSM and Cotton, which are mandated for dedicated, prioritized and/or accelerated treatment, be taken up within the CoA-SS through text-based negotiations in existing dedicated sessions and the further elaboration of appropriate, agreed modalities for rapidly advancing the work, including approaches/ mechanisms that foster deeper understanding of the issues and the preparation of textual inputs for negotiation. 2. The CoA-SS Chair be invited to prepare draft texts for the other negotiating pillars, mandates and issues, including market access, domestic support, and export-related matters, on the basis of Member’s proposals in these areas, as a basis for text-based negotiations in the CoA-SS or facilitator-led processes. 3.The cross-cutting issues (transparency, sustainability and food security) be taken up in the facilitator-led process. In conclusion, Guyana said, “the CoA-SS is invited to consider the options above as possible ways forward to achieve common positions with the aim of [breaking] the existing gridlock.” Many members appear to have welcomed Guyana’s proposal, while some other members underscored the need for more time for deliberation, said people familiar with the discussions. India, Egypt, the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries, and members of the G33 supported Guyana’s proposal on prioritizing the negotiations on the mandated issues. Significantly, the African Group, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and South Africa expressed willingness to discuss all issues and consider constructive approaches. However, the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries led by Australia, Brazil, Thailand, Canada, Guatemala, and Uruguay, as well as farm-defensive countries like the EU, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom suggested that all issues in the agriculture negotiations are interlinked and should be discussed together, said people familiar with the discussions. Brazil is understood to have said that transparency, sustainability, and food security must not be treated as separate issues but should be integrated into the broader discussions. In sharp contrast, India emphasized that all unresolved mandated issues such as the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH), Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM), and Cotton need to be prioritized and addressed as stand-alone issues. “The trust deficit is a major reason for agriculture not moving forward,” India said. It argued that discussing these unresolved mandated issues before the other issues would rebuild trust. Commenting on Guyana’s proposal, India demanded that any facilitator-led process should be consensus-based and respect the WTO’s multilateral principles, rejecting the non-traditional approach based on “convergence.” In response to India’s statement, the US stuck to its stand of not treating the unresolved mandated issues on a stand-alone basis, suggesting the need for balanced and inclusive negotiations where all members can benefit. Meanwhile, the US also supported the African Group and the Cairns Group for their collaborative approaches and encouraged all members to engage with each other. Washington also supported Brazil’s initiative on sustainable agriculture, urging members to shift their “mindset” and discuss new issues to break the deadlock. The EU supported the preparation of draft texts by the chair but stressed that text-based negotiations should follow sufficient convergence on substantive issues. In line with the DG’s oft-repeated statement on food security, the EU called for considering contemporary challenges such as food security and sustainability and urged members to rebuild trust through constructive engagement. China, which had differed with India’s demand for an outcome on PSH at MC13, apparently called for a shift in “mindset” and fact-based discussions on each negotiating pillar to achieve fair and equitable rules. Like the EU, China emphasized the importance of addressing food security and sustainability, aligning with Brazil’s sustainable agriculture initiative, and exploring new possibilities through collaboration and broader stakeholder engagement. Earlier, India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan on 4 November had called for deciding issues in the Doha agriculture negotiating body based on the principle of “consensus”, said negotiators who preferred not to be identified. Even the African Group, which has held consultations with members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, demanded that the facilitator-led-process, as proposed by the WTO Director-General, be based on “consensus” and not “convergence”, said people familiar with the development. Given the sharp concerns expressed over the controversial facilitator-led process proposed by the DG, India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan had suggested a way forward on how to reinvigorate the agriculture negotiations. In their restricted proposal (Job/AG/263), the three countries proposed that the “agriculture negotiations on mandated issues like PSH, SSM and Cotton should take place in the CoA-SS, led by the CoA-SS Chair, in an accelerated timeframe for an early decision and adoption, through an open, inclusive and transparent process, as per the mandate given by Ministers.” The mandate provided by trade ministers at the WTO’s 10th ministerial conference (MC10) in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, unambiguously stated that the permanent solution for PSH and SSM should be concluded at MC11 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017. As reported in the SUNS, an outcome on these two issues is hanging in limbo even at MC13 held in Abu Dhabi early this year. The draft Abu Dhabi ministerial decision (WT/MIN(24)/W/13), for example, contained two options on the permanent solution for PSH: “28. [Pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members adopt a permanent solution as set out in Annex […] to this Decision.] OR 28. [Pursuant to Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members undertake to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in Dedicated Sessions of the CoA-SS and agree and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes by MC14, which shall be available to all developing country Members. Public stockholding programmes shall not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. 29. The negotiations for a permanent solution shall pay particular attention to the food security challenges of LDCs and NFIDCs, and consider all relevant issues, including domestic food security targets of the programmes; product coverage; safeguards and anti-circumvention, including with respect to exports; transparency; and legal certainty. They shall also consider the impact of inflation on calculations of the Aggregate Measurement of Support.] 30. [Taking into account the acute food security challenges and vulnerabilities of developing country Members, in particular LDCs [and NFIDCs], Members agree to extend, until [MC14], the Bali Interim Solution established by the Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913) and the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 (WT/L/939) to public stockholding programmes for food security purposes of LDCs [and NFIDCs that are net importers of the product concerned] enacted after 7 December 2013. The General Council shall regularly review progress in these negotiations.]” At MC13, India said that it will not join the consensus on agriculture unless ministers agreed on the permanent solution for PSH. At the Abu Dhabi meeting, India’s trade minister Piyush Goyal requested the DG to find a compromise on the permanent solution for PSH when she was pushing for an outcome on a non-mandated issue, namely, the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement, said people familiar with the small-group meeting convened by the DG at MC13 on the night of 2 March. However, the DG told India that a compromise on the permanent solution for PSH must be found by the members themselves and not by her, said people familiar with the discussions. In their latest restricted proposal, India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan said that “on other pillars – Domestic Support, Market Access, and Export Competition – the modalities of a facilitator-led process can be discussed further to reach a consensus.” +
|
||
