|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/44) Yaounde, 29 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The United States on 27 March appears to have killed any outcome on agriculture at the World Trade Organization’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon, after insisting on its textual formulations to delete any reference to past ministerial outcomes, as demanded by India and the Cotton Four (C-4) countries – Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Chad, said people familiar with the discussions. The US also apparently insisted on difficult conditions, including on “new approaches,” while discarding the demands for continued negotiations on a permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security after MC14 or discussing the long-pending mandated issue of cotton subsidies as demanded by the C-4 countries, said people familiar with the development. In fact, this is not the first time the US has killed any outcome on agriculture, as it did at MC11 in Buenos Aires, Argentina in December 2017 when former US Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer chose to kill an outcome on agriculture, said participants familiar with the development. The US made drafting suggestions to the Minister-Facilitator’s draft text, insisting on “new approaches” in the agriculture negotiations, while deleting all references to past ministerial outcomes. An outcome on agriculture at MC14 hangs in the balance, as intense discussions apparently failed to bring about any convergence, said people familiar with the development. The discussions were held bilaterally as well as in small groups, in which the United States, India, and the Cotton Four countries raised sharp objections as well as questions on their respective concerns over continuing the discussions on the permanent solution for PSH, trade-distorting domestic cotton subsidies, and an “inane” work program being demanded by the US, said participants on a background basis. The discussions held in bilateral and small group meetings are not going well and are facing several stumbling blocks, said a participant from a South American country. Another crucial issue dividing the US, India, and the C-4 is the fate and treatment of past mandates with differing expectations, the South American participant said. India and the C-4 countries seem determined to ensure that the past ministerial decisions and declarations on PSH and cotton, respectively, are followed up in a committed process with serious intent. In sharp contrast, the US, which is supported by the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries and the European Union among others, wants to achieve a re-reading or reinterpretation of those mandates by pushing the idea of so-called “new approaches” and targeting discussions on addressing the root causes of the stalemate, said another South American participant, who asked not to be quoted. Several countries in the small group discussions appear to agree with India and the C-4 that if the core principles are enshrined in binding ministerial outcomes, questioning and twisting them with “new approaches” renders the negotiations meaningless and ineffectual, according to developing-country participants who took part in the meetings. India and the C-4 want to doubly ensure that eventually the post-MC14 negotiating mandate should explicitly mention both the permanent solution on PSH and cotton subsidies that have been hanging fire since the WTO’s sixth ministerial conference in Hong Kong-China in 2005. For many developing countries, particularly the C-4 countries, these two issues are at the heart of the multilateral agricultural outcomes, said participants who asked not to be quoted. Significantly, the WTO’s Director-General, Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was of the view that resolving the issue of cotton subsidies would be tantamount to technical and financial assistance and “cotton fashion shows” at the ongoing Yaounde meeting, but not addressing the core issue of cotton subsidies because that would involve upsetting the US, which has been fiercely opposing the resolution of the cotton subsidy issue, said an African participant who asked not to be quoted. In the run-up to MC14, the US and the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries succeeded in removing the issue of PSH from the chair’s discussions, said farm negotiators familiar with behind-the-scenes moves. While cotton is being seemingly shown to be treated in the WTO through fashion shows, the term PSH has thus remained conspicuously silent in the meeting rooms. The next few hours will be critical, as agriculture can potentially at any time destroy potential success on other issues. The big battle on agriculture is apparently going to be between India and the US over the fate of the final outcome and whether it will include a dedicated work program on PSH, said participants who asked not to be identified. Before MC14, the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Ali Sarfraz Hussain of Pakistan, issued the following text on 16 March: “The Ministerial Conference, Recognizing the role that the WTO Agreement on Agriculture has played since 1995, and continues to play, in supporting global trade in agricultural products and food security; Recalling the long-term objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and of providing for substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection, in line with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Recalling previous Ministerial Decisions and Declarations; Recalling that special and differential treatment for developing country Members, including Least Developed Countries, is an integral part of the agriculture negotiations; Recognizing the urgent need to strengthen global food security, particularly for developing country Members, including Least Developed Countries and net food-importing developing countries; and the role that the reform of agricultural trade can play in responding to the challenges facing agricultural production and trade, including price volatility, extreme weather events and exposure to global shocks and crises; Noting the heightened vulnerabilities of farmers, particularly smallholder farmers, and rural communities, requiring urgent, balanced, and development-oriented responses; Noting with concern the limited progress achieved to date on several negotiating issues, and acknowledging the significant divergences on negotiating approaches and on possible outcomes across areas of the negotiations, and the need to address the existing stalemate in these negotiations; Considering the above, the Ministerial Conference: Commits to engaging constructively, transparently and inclusively to fulfil the objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and to deliver outcomes that, inter alia, strengthen global food security. Commits to revitalizing the agriculture negotiations pursuant to Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and subsequent Ministerial Decisions and Declarations. Agrees that the negotiations shall continue on the basis of Members’ existing and future contributions, including proposals on possible new approaches to advance the negotiations. Requests the CoA-SS Chair, in consultation with Members, to promptly establish following this Conference a calendar of meetings and milestones in the negotiations, and invites senior officials to meet periodically after MC14 to review progress and provide guidance on the way forward, as needed. Invites Members and the relevant international organizations to continue supporting the participation of developing country Members, including Least Developed Countries, in the negotiations, including through technical assistance and capacity-building initiatives.” Meanwhile, representatives of civil society groups expressed alarm: “Overdue development outcomes must be resolved first, and a sequence of negotiations must be established based on priorities of the majority of Members and on past mandates. Food security must not be compromised for the sake of profits for agri-businesses of the developed countries.” They said any new approach or framework, including of sustainability, must not be introduced without resolving outstanding issues. The civil society groups said that “a comprehensive framework around food security/sovereignty is required that underlines the need for policy tools for developing countries, NFIDCs and LDCs to manage crises and volatility; promote agricultural development including for augmentation of agricultural production and protection of livelihoods and incomes of farmers; ensure food security for their citizens; and support nationally designed sustainability initiatives.” INDIAN PROPOSAL India, in an apparent attempt to demonstrate its flexibility in the agriculture negotiations, after the US pulled the plug, circulated the following restricted proposal (WT/MIN(26)/32): “DRAFT DECLARATION ON POSSIBLE NEW APPROACHES TO ADVANCE AGRICULTURE NEGOTIATIONS The following communication, dated 28 March 2026, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of India. The Ministerial Conference, Noting the past mandates under the Agreement on Agriculture and subsequent Ministerial Decisions adopted at Bali (2013), the General Council Decision (2014), and Nairobi (2015); Affirming the importance of agriculture for food security, livelihood security, and rural development, particularly for developing and least-developed country Members; Recognizing the need to preserve the development dimension of the Doha Work Programme, any possible new approach shall be consistent with existing mandates and not dilute or replace them; Decides as follows: 1. Commits to continue negotiations in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session on the basis of existing mandates, with a view to achieving balanced and development-oriented outcomes. 2. Commits to prioritize outcomes on mandated issues of Permanent Solution on Public Stockholding (PSH), Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM), and Cotton, followed by outcomes on broader long-term reforms, consistent with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 3. Commits to address these mandated issues on a standalone basis and shall not be made contingent upon progress in other areas. 4. Agrees to establish a time-bound pathway to deliver outcomes on mandated issues no later than MC15. 5. Commits to engage constructively to negotiate and make all concerted efforts to agree and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes. 6. Commits to establish an effective, simple, non-onerous and accessible SSM to address import surges and price volatility, for developing countries. 7. Commits to engage constructively to advance Cotton negotiations ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically within agriculture negotiations. 8. Commits to address structural imbalances in domestic support, including elimination of Final Bound Aggregate Measurement of Support (FBTAMS) entitlements to create a level playing field. 9. Agrees that Special and Differential Treatment for developing countries is preserved and strengthened.” +
|
||
