|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/47) Yaounde, 30 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) of the World Trade Organization ended in Yaounde, Cameroon, on 29 March with no ministerial declaration or multilateral outcomes on three key issues, namely reforming the WTO, agriculture, and extending the e-commerce moratorium, as well as the proposed incorporation of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement. In his statement, the chair of MC14 announced the suspension of the meeting and the continuation of work in Geneva. In line with several failed WTO ministerial conferences – such as the 1999 Seattle ministerial conference, the 2003 Cancun ministerial conference, and the 2017 Buenos Aires ministerial conference – the Yaounde meeting will also witness a chair’s statement, said participants who asked not to be quoted. Several factors brought down MC14, but it was the negotiating strategies adopted by the United States that resulted in substantially lowering the level of ambition in all areas while upping the ante on its core demand of a permanent moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. This demand apparently led to vitiating the overall negotiating climate, said several participants who asked not to be quoted. The US apparently made the issue of the e-commerce moratorium the centerpiece of the whole conference, said a participant from an African country. “This single issue of e-commerce moratorium created such stress at the conference with everything being linked to it through that linkage,” said a South American participant who asked not to be quoted. “By linking everything to the moratorium, the US apparently brought down the ambition in several different areas, while diluting the proposed reform package that had already been streamlined because of them in Geneva, but was obviously not enough,” the participant said. Apparently, Washington was looking for a procedural-type document and WTO reform would be something that members would carry out post-MC14 on the basis of their submissions and direct representation, said another participant from Asia on a background basis. There was a strong position against any Secretariat activism, said participants who asked not to be quoted. In agriculture, members arrived in Yaounde with a very slim draft text from the co-chairs after everyone had diluted their own positions in order to accommodate the US demands, said a participant who asked not to be quoted. In the end, every country that participated in the meeting felt that under the circumstances it was better to have something rather than nothing, said a participant from Asia who asked not to be quoted. Without naming the US, one trade minister said, “one member decides to do away with 70% of that small text.” In effect, the declaration was diluted, and there was no consensus on the text. Even the manner in which bilateral meetings were conducted left much to be desired; countries like India and Turkiye were called before Brazil, which was pressing for issues, with no preference given to Brazil for any bilateral meetings. The chairs and Minister-Facilitators rapidly declared, “well, there’s no consensus.” Also, the overall process during the conference was very poor even though countries repeatedly stated that they had issues and problems to be addressed, said a participant who asked not to be quoted. The “draft Yaounde Ministerial Declaration on WTO Reform” apparently issued by the Norwegian foreign minister on 28 March night appears to have been amended to reflect the concerns raised by five countries – the United States, Paraguay, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, said participants familiar with the development. The draft shared with the SUNS in the early morning of 29 March states: “We acknowledge that the WTO faces serious challenges that require necessary reform,” and that “while we hold differing views on the challenges and solutions, we commit to work urgently and in good faith following MC14 to advance reforms, recalling the progress and outcomes made in MC12 and MC13.” The draft states that trade ministers present at the meeting “instruct our officials to intensify their work with a view to providing concrete and substantive recommendations for action by MC15. We will undertake a mid-term review in advance of MC15 to assess progress and provide further directions.” It argues that “Members engaged in reform discussions leading up to MC14 in various areas, including the three areas as reflected in the Reform Facilitator’s Reports: Decision-making, Development, including S&DT, and Level Playing Field,” adding that work on these three issues “will continue post MC14.” The draft further states, “We also had discussions on Foundational Issues at MC14 – including systemic issues such as WTO principles and the balance of rights and obligations,” in an apparent giveaway to the US demand for discussing the issue of changing the most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment principle as well as transparency and the functioning of the WTO Secretariat. “Post MC14 discussions will include these issues,” it said. Among other things, further context is in the Facilitator’s reports and the reports of the MC14 Minister- Facilitators, it said. On dispute settlement, it merely acknowledged that “the WTO Dispute Settlement System is not fully and well-functioning and needs to be reformed. We agree that consultations on dispute settlement reform, under the auspices of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), should continue following MC14.” In another apparent acceptance of the demand by the five countries, the draft said: “Work will be conducted under the authority of the General Council. Dispute Settlement Reform will be under the auspices of the DSB. The WTO Reform process shall be Member-driven, open, transparent, and inclusive, and address the interests of all Members.” The appointment of WTO Reform Facilitators, a process that was arbitrarily undertaken in the appointment of the controversial Norwegian trade envoy Ambassador Petter Olberg, is now being corrected, as per the draft. It said: “WTO Reform Facilitators for each of the reform areas shall be appointed by decision of the General Council at its meeting.” Further, it states somewhat unambiguously, while reflecting India’s main concern, that “the General Council Chairperson will oversee and coordinate the overall process to ensure coherence across workstreams and avoid scheduling overlaps. The capacity constraints of Members, especially of resource-constrained delegations, will be taken into account in scheduling meetings.” On indicative timelines/checkpoints, the draft states: “Work will resume in April 2026” and, more importantly, “Progress reports to the General Council will be provided in July 2026, December 2026, July 2027, and December 2027, with senior officials participating as necessary.” It also suggests at least “one midway review ahead of MC15. The report produced in July 2026 may include, but shall not be limited to, a stocktaking across all identified reform areas.” Finally, it touches on the issue of “flexibility,” under which it claims that “the Work Plan is designed to remain flexible to ensure responsiveness and institutional agility.” According to the draft, “The identification of any particular issue as a “focus” issue or an otherwise important issue will not be interpreted in any way as limiting the scope of issues Members can address in the reform process or imply any particular sequencing. Moreover, this reform process will be without prejudice to work in any WTO committee or other body.” FULL TEXT The full text is as follows: “DRAFT YAOUNDE MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ON WTO REFORM We recognize the contribution of the WTO to the economic growth of its Members over the past 30 years and that it continues to perform valuable functions. At the same time, we acknowledge that the WTO faces serious challenges that require necessary reform. While we hold differing views on the challenges and solutions, we commit to work urgently and in good faith following MC14 to advance reforms, recalling the progress and outcomes made in MC12 and MC13. In this context, we instruct our officials to intensify their work with a view to providing concrete and substantive recommendations for action by MC15. We will undertake a mid-term review in advance of MC15 to assess progress and provide further directions. WTO REFORM WORK PLAN Decision-Making, Development, including S&DT, Level Playing Field Issues and Foundational issues We note that Members engaged in reform discussions leading up to MC14 in various areas, including the three areas as reflected in the Reform Facilitator’s Reports: Decision-making, Development, including S&DT, and Level Playing Field. We engaged in discussions on these areas at Yaounde and agree that work on these three issues will continue post MC14. We also had discussions on Foundational Issues at MC14 – including systemic issues such as WTO principles and the balance of rights and obligations. Post MC14 discussions will include these issues. Among other things, further context is in the Facilitator’s reports and the reports of the MC14 Minister Facilitators. Dispute Settlement We acknowledge that the WTO Dispute Settlement System is not fully and well-functioning and needs to be reformed. We agree that consultations on dispute settlement reform, under the auspices of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), should continue following MC14. Modalities Authority: Work will be conducted under the authority of the General Council. Dispute Settlement Reform will be under the auspices of the DSB. The WTO Reform process shall be Member-driven, open, transparent, and inclusive, and address the interests of all Members. WTO Reform Facilitators for each of the reform areas shall be appointed by decision of the General Council at its next meeting. Failing that, the General Council Chairperson shall appoint Facilitators based on consultations with Members. Facilitators will facilitate discussions based on Members’ submissions and contributions. They shall be accountable, and report regularly, to the General Council. The General Council Chairperson will oversee and coordinate the overall process to ensure coherence across workstreams and avoid scheduling overlaps. The capacity constraints of Members, especially of resource- constrained delegations, will be taken into account in scheduling meetings. Indicative Timelines/checkpoints: Work will resume in April 2026. Progress reports to the General Council will be provided in July 2026, December 2026, July 2027, and December 2027, with senior officials participating as necessary. We will conduct at least one midway review ahead of MC15. The report produced in July 2026 may include, but shall not be limited to, a stocktaking across all identified reform areas. Flexibility: The Work Plan is designed to remain flexible to ensure responsiveness and institutional agility. The identification of any particular issue as a “focus” issue or an otherwise important issue will not be interpreted in any way as limiting the scope of issues Members can address in the reform process or imply any particular sequencing. Moreover, this reform process will be without prejudice to work in any WTO committee or other body.” +
|
||
