|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb26/27) Geneva, 26 Feb (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations at the World Trade Organization is likely to face on 27 February several challenges to his ongoing efforts to push for consensus around a seemingly inconsequential Jamaican proposal that leaves the unfinished agriculture negotiations in proverbial cold storage, as the clock ticks down for the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14), said people familiar with the development. MC14 is scheduled to take place in Yaounde, Cameroon, from 26 to 29 March. In the ongoing battle to map out the onward trajectory for the unfinished agriculture negotiations and how they should be intensified after MC14, Argentina has also floated a proposal that calls for a “relaunch” of the negotiations. The Argentinian proposal is apparently being opposed by the African Group, said people familiar with the development. The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Ali Sarfraz Hussain of Pakistan, who appears to have succeeded in getting his predecessor, Dr. Syed Tauqir Shah, appointed as the minister-facilitator for the make-or-break agriculture negotiations at MC14 in Yaounde, has the task of addressing several conflicting positions. At the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, which functions under the continued Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) mandate, the chair’s efforts to build consensus around the Jamaican proposal are seemingly proving to be in vain, said farm negotiators from several countries. Jamaica, which was a signatory to a draft ministerial decision (JOB/AG/229) submitted in June 2022, has now disavowed its alliance with other developing countries on public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security purposes, alongside the African Group, the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group, and the G33. Several developing countries privately believe that the Jamaican proposal was tabled with the support of the United States, the European Union, and G10 farm-defensive countries led by Switzerland, Norway, and Japan, among others, said people familiar with the development. The Jamaican proposal underlines the commitment “to engage constructively and transparently to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and deliver results that strengthen global food security.” The Jamaican draft ministerial declaration “calls upon Members and relevant international organizations to continue supporting efforts to enhance food security, including through technical assistance and capacity building for developing country Members.” Effectively, for some inexplicable reason, the Jamaican proposal appears to turn a blind eye to the past ministerial mandates, as well as its own role in the past, said another farm trade negotiator from South America, who preferred not to be identified. INDONESIAN PROPOSAL It is against this backdrop of negotiating chaos that Jamaica has created in the agriculture negotiations that Indonesia has come out with a proposal that appears to shift any decision on PSH to the WTO’s 15th Ministerial Conference (MC15). The restricted proposal (TN/AG/W/14) submitted by Indonesia on 27 January, seen by the SUNS, appears to have further diluted the G33 positions by settling for an expedited framework to decide on PSH at MC15. The Indonesian proposal calls for committing to ensure “that agricultural trade rules continue to support Members’ efforts to collectively strengthen global food security in a manner that is inclusive, balanced, and responsive to evolving challenges.” It further calls for advancing “the agriculture negotiations, with a view to contributing to a fair, transparent, and predictable agricultural trading system that reinforces food security objectives.” The Indonesian proposal also reaffirms that “SDT [special and differential treatment] remains an important element of the agriculture negotiations, recognizing its role in supporting the efforts of developing country Members to strengthen food security, enhance resilience, and address their specific development needs within the multilateral trading system.” It also sets out several markers, such as “a. the use and design of food security instruments; b. the development dimension of domestic support policies, including on cotton; c. addressing possible distortive impacts on trade in agriculture; and d. transparency and monitoring of global agricultural markets.” It tasks the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS) to engage in open and inclusive consultations that reflect Members’ views in periodic reports, with the aim of achieving results for adoption by Ministers at MC15, based on proposals tabled at the latest six months following MC14. In their engagement, the CoA-SS will identify possible areas of convergence and trade-offs to facilitate outcomes. Although the African Group of countries tacitly supported the Indonesian proposal, as did Brazil, there is “a flutter” in the negotiations with the issuance of the Argentinian proposal, which was circulated on 20 February, said people familiar with the development. ARGENTINIAN PROPOSAL In a restricted proposal (JOB/AG/272 ) – titled “Draft Ministerial Decision on the Relaunch of Agriculture Negotiations,” seen by the SUNS – Argentina appears to give short shrift to the negotiations conducted on agriculture since 2001, while calling for fresh negotiations under Article 20 of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Expressing concern over “the prolonged paralysis and limited progress achieved to date in agriculture negotiations,” Argentina said nevertheless that “the [unfinished] negotiations have generated a solid foundation of technical knowledge and work, increased understanding of the interests of different members and negotiating options that can and should inform a renewed phase of work guided by Ministerial-level political direction.” Against this backdrop, Argentina called for “the relaunch of agriculture negotiations” to address “in a balanced and comprehensive manner, all pillars [domestic support, market access, and export competition] and elements of the agricultural reform process, in accordance with the mandate of Article 20 of the AoA, taking into account non-trade concerns, special and differential treatment for developing members and the objective to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.” To recall, Article 20 of the AoA calls for continuing the agriculture reform process, stating that, “Members agree that negotiations for continuing the process will be initiated one year before the end of the implementation period,” which was reflected in the Doha agriculture mandate. The operational part of the Argentinian proposal appears to be fine-tuned in line with the concerns raised by the US, following the language it had proposed in dismantling the Doha Round of trade negotiations at MC10 in Nairobi, Kenya in December 2015, said farm trade negotiators familiar with the proposal. It specifically states: “Members acknowledge the work undertaken to date in the context of the agriculture negotiations and recognize that, despite sustained efforts, significant divergences persist [which the US keeps repeating at every CoA-SS meeting] and progress has stalled. They agree that advancing the reform process will require identifying and addressing the factors that have contributed to the stalemate [which the US has said several times before].” Lastly, the Argentinian proposal states: “Members agree that continued progress in agriculture negotiations requires sustained political engagement and guidance at a high level. In this regard, Members underline the importance of periodic opportunities for collective reflection and exchange among Ministers and Senior Officials, with a view to taking stock of discussions, and providing guidance for future work, as appropriate.” According to farm trade negotiators, privately, the Argentinian proposal is facing opposition from the EU, the G10 member countries, and even the African Group. +
|
||
