|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec24/07) New Delhi, 16 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the fisheries subsidies negotiations at the World Trade Organization, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, on 13 December decided to “withdraw the inscription of the two draft decisions” on fisheries subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF), while indicating that the chair of the General Council (GC) “stands ready to call for a special session of the GC at a short notice.” In an email sent to Heads of Delegations on 13 December, seen by the SUNS, the chair referred to the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) meeting of 12 December wherein “a couple of Members continued to call for substantial changes to document TN/RL/W/285, which would clearly unbalance the text for the wider Membership.” Ambassador Gunnarsson, however, did not elaborate on the “substantial changes”, or how they would constitute “unbalancing” his revised draft text. It is an open secret that the revised draft Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/W/285) was seemingly constructed primarily to take the interests/concerns of the big subsidizers on board with specific carveouts and manageable notification requirements, contrary to the mandate on prohibiting OCOF subsidies, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. Moreover, the chair seems to have structured the revised draft text in favour of the big subsidizers to continue with their tens of billions of dollars of subsidies for distant-water fishing, the trade envoy said. The chair ought to have mustered the courage to justify his allegedly asymmetrical treatment of favouring the big subsidizers with manageable notification requirements, while bringing modest improvements in the special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions for developing countries, said another member, who asked not to be identified. In his email, the chair said, “I did not detect any signs that Members would realistically be able to deal with these differences over the weekend.” “The situation, therefore, continues to reflect what I described in my report to the TNC (which has been circulated as document TN/RL/37),” the chair said. “Furthermore,” the chair said, “I took note of the TNC chair’s observation that despite a large majority of mostly developing Members being ready to conclude based on document W/285, a couple of Members continued to call for a fundamentally different approach.” “As such, the TNC chair [Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who is also the WTO Director-General], out of respect for the two or three Members who are not ready to join consensus, they should be given more time to further engage their capitals and continue working with other members,” the chair wrote in his email. The DG’s apparent “benevolent” attitude is neither needed, nor is it consistent with a rules-based, member-driven organization, said a person, who preferred not to be quoted. Moreover, the DG has remained silent when only one member, the United States, has systematically blocked a joint request from 130 countries for filling the vacancies on the Appellate Body since December 2019. Like the revised draft Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies, the previous chair of the General Council, Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand, had also produced a draft text to address one member’s concerns about the functioning of the Appellate Body that was accepted by a large majority of members, but it resulted in no change, the person said. The DG’s seemingly “glaring double standards” are out there for everyone to see, the person said. The fisheries chair’s above claims seem to be devoid of fair and equal treatment as set out in the mandates based on the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 and the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in December 2017, the member said. UN SDG 14.6 states, “by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing, and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation.” This comes in light of a manifestly wrong method that the chair seems to have adopted in calculating subsidies on an aggregate level instead of a per capita basis, which would reveal the gross disparities in the quantum/ magnitude of subsidies provided by the big subsidizers on the one hand, and the rather insignificant levels of subsidies provided by developing countries on the other, the person said. The problems encountered by the chair now appear to be a legacy issue that the previous chair, former Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, created, the person said. Later, Ambassador Wills was made the Director of the General Council and TNC Division at the WTO, the person said. “I also bear in mind that the General Council (GC) Chair stands ready to call for a special session of the GC at a short notice,” the chair said in his email. “In light of all this, Iceland has, at my recommendation, decided to withdraw the inscription of the two draft Decisions from the December GC agenda,” the chair concluded. CHAIR’S STATEMENT AT TNC At the TNC meeting on 12 December, Ambassador Gunnarsson made a rather lengthy statement explaining the process as well as how the negotiations have proceeded over the past five months. The chair’s intervention (TN/RL/37), drew attention to his earlier draft text (TN/RL/W/279) that he circulated under his own responsibility as chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR). He said he asked his mission to place the draft text and two accompanying draft decisions on the agenda of the GC meeting on 22-23 July. Ambassador Gunnarsson also drew attention to the three papers inscribed by India on 11 July for discussion at the GC meeting. He said, “India raised fundamental issues and concerns that would require substantial restructuring or would roll back the key compromises made at MC13, which were essential elements of the considerable convergence that was achieved then.” India, according to the chair, “also called into question the negotiating mandate given to us by Ministers at MC12, and even sought to reopen the Fish 1 Agreement.” The chair said, “at the TNC meeting of 15 July, the vast majority of Members’ interventions revealed that there was broad support for concluding the negotiations on the basis of document W/279, and provided valuable insights into the remaining gaps and areas where many Members believed further progress was required to reach consensus by the July GC.” Ambassador Gunnarsson, without naming India, said “at least one Member’s statement clearly indicated that it would not be in a position to conclude on the basis of W/279 without substantial changes in approach.” The chair said he held sustained discussions with Members, who “moved beyond their long-standing negotiating positions and showed a willingness to compromise with a view to finding creative solutions to several key issues.” The chair said these centred on “(i) the transition period for LDC Members and related provisions on the peace clause; (ii) the role and formulation of footnote 23 on artisanal and small-scale fishing; and (iii) the interplay between subparagraphs (a) and (b) in Article A.2 on distant water fishing.” The chair said he had realized that “a consensus on a revised version of document W/279 could not be achieved at the July GC, accordingly, I advised Iceland to move the draft text and accompanying decisions on the Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies from a “decision” item on the agenda of the GC to a “discussion” item.” He said this fall, “I resumed NGR activities at the end of October to hear Members’ latest reflections and views on the way forward. Between 28 October and 11 November, I altogether held 28 bilateral meetings with individual Members and Group representatives covering a wide spectrum of the Membership.” He said that he held “an open-ended NGR plenary on 19 November to report on those consultations and to provide Members with an opportunity to exchange views on whether a decision on the Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies should be inscribed onto the agenda of the December GC. ” The chair said, “while the overwhelming majority of Members that spoke at the November NGR plenary called for the conclusion of the negotiations in December, a few Members advised against pushing for the December GC.” Without naming the two members (India and the United States), the chair said that “at least two of these Members reiterated their position that they needed to see substantial changes to several different parts of document W/279 to be able to join consensus.” The chair continued: “On 29 November, I circulated a revised text of the Additional Provisions in document TN/RL/W/285 (document W/285) with an accompanying addendum and informed Members that I would once again request Iceland to inscribe the Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies onto the agenda of the December GC for “decision”. Document W/285 contained the three changes that we had identified in July and removed the numbers for the two transition periods in Articles B.1 and B.3 to acknowledge that further engagement from Members is needed on them.” After Iceland inscribed the draft text in document W/285 and the two accompanying draft decisions onto the agenda of the GC meeting on 5 December, the chair said, “India also inscribed onto the agenda of the December GC for “discussion” the three papers previously discussed at the July GC, as well as one additional paper, circulated as document WT/GC/W/958, proposing to introduce the notion of subsidy intensity into the draft text of the Additional Provisions.” The chair maintained that on 7 December, “I met with a small group of Members to discuss the overall balance in document W/285 and the way forward.” According to the chair, “members had a frank and open exchange of views, which included discussing the overall approach underlying the draft OCOF disciplines.” At the small-group meeting of some dozen countries on 7 December, the chair said, “Many Members noted that the draft text did not fully address all their interests and needs.” “However, they recognized that it is the product of years of negotiations in which all Members’ positions have been tried and tested,” the chair said, suggesting that the participants “see document W/285, with some final tweaks and adjustments, as allowing us to bring our negotiations to a conclusion.” In this context, the chair said, “several Members reflected on the consequences for fish stock sustainability if Members fail to reach consensus now, noting that it was difficult for them to see a viable alternative way forward.” “For at least two Members, however, document W/285 falls far short of an acceptable outcome and is not appropriately balanced,” the chair noted. Further, “these Members stated forcefully that they would need considerable substantial changes to document W/285 in order to be able to join consensus,” the chair said, arguing that “one Member’s balance may be another Member’s imbalance.” The chair said, “it was obvious that further engagement in small groups on other issues would be futile unless there was some kind of a breakthrough on these more fundamental questions of the overall balance of document W/285.” The chair said that it is his “honest account” that he “continuously observed that the vast majority of Members is willing to conclude the negotiations on the basis of the existing draft text – be it on the basis of document W/279 or document W/285 – either as it is or with some limited tweaks and adjustments.” “For these Members, the disciplines thus far negotiated strike a delicate balance among many conflicting interests and are the product of hard-won compromises over years of discussions,” the chair maintained. “However, at least two Members have continuously maintained that significant imbalances remain in the draft text and that substantial changes would be required for them to join consensus,” the chair pointed out. He suggested that “these two Members continue to seek more material amendments to the text, calling for a fundamentally different approach, as elaborated, for example, in India’s four papers circulated in documents WT/GC/W/945, WT/GC/W/946, WT/GC/W/947, and WT/GC/W/958.” The chair believed that “these calls for substantial changes have been very well explained by their proponents and are well understood by the rest of the Membership.” Therefore, the chair said, “at this juncture, I cannot see or detect any signal that will allow me to issue a written revision of document W/285 that could pave the way to its actual adoption along with the two decisions inscribed for the GC meeting come next Monday [16 December].” He urged members to prove him wrong “through your interventions in this (GC) meeting, and on this occasion, I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.” There might likely be an orchestrated effort at the GC meeting on 16 December to “name and shame” the two members opposing an agreement, said a person who asked not to be quoted. “So, in short, save for any last-minute solution, it seems to me that, as one Member has put it, the negotiations have reached a stalemate even though nearly all Members can support the current text as a basis for conclusion,” the chair noted. +
|
||
