|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct26/04) WTO:
Divergent views and erosion of compromise mark downbeat TNC Geneva, 2 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Sharply divergent views marked a downbeat World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) meeting on 1 October, with the WTO Director-General having apparently suggested that negotiations had lost their character as a process of compromise, according to people familiar with the development. In what was the first TNC meeting since December 2025, and six months after the WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon, the DG stated that some members set out a position and hold up progress until it is met. She noted that this was happening in “three or four negotiating areas.” Delivering what was essentially a tutorial to members, the DG cited ChatGPT’s definition of negotiations as “talking and compromising to reach an agreement,” urging members to reflect on what negotiating truly requires. In her concluding remarks, the DG lamented that “negotiations [are] no longer about compromise. It is about saying this is what I want and I am going to stop everything unless you give me what I want.” The DG’s comments have not yet been released in an official document. CHAIR’S REPORTS According to several members, the chairs of five negotiating bodies established by the TNC delivered their respective reports. Some 40 members took the floor to address the DG’s guiding question on how to generate momentum in the negotiations while advancing WTO reform, alongside the regular work of the Councils and Committees. The chairs’ reports described a negotiating function largely stuck in a pre-negotiation mode. Meanwhile, the TRIPS Council in Special Session has seen no substantive negotiations on the geographical indications (GI) register for many years. Similarly, the Council for Trade in Services (CTS) in Special Session remained split on whether to assess services commitments in regional trade agreements. The agriculture talks, which remain blocked due to opposition from a major industrialized country, have been converted into a series of Secretariat presentations on the history of each pillar, said a trade official who asked not to be named. The chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules overseeing the fisheries subsidies negotiations offered "cautious optimism" following Fish Week 1 the previous week, noting that text-based negotiations are targeted only for 2027, according to people familiar with the development. The chair of the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session (CTD-SS) reported that the outcomes achieved were the two G90 decisions on special and differential treatment concerning sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT) measures, as well as on Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. FISHERIES SUBSIDIES The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies entered into force on 15 September 2025. Article 12 of the Agreement states: “If comprehensive disciplines are not adopted within four years of the entry into force of this Agreement, and unless otherwise decided by the General Council, this Agreement shall stand immediately terminated.” Several members noted that only three years remain. The Pacific Group pointed to the irony of the situation, saying that it needs "a sunrise in fish two" to avoid "a sunset on fish one." Significantly, a large majority - including the African, ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific), Pacific, Caricom (Caribbean Community), and LDC groups, as well as Japan, Korea, China, New Zealand, and Viet Nam - supported document TN/RL/W/285 as the basis for further work. Japan referred to a "call to restart the negotiation from scratch" by one member, while Singapore proposed “Friends of the Chair” groups to build "a new negotiating text." Australia stated that "a couple of the largest members" were seeking stronger disciplines than it judged achievable, warning that no agreement would be "the worst possible outcome." Pakistan said that positions had moved further away from document W/285, if they moved at all, while asking whether members are negotiating "a primarily sustainability agreement or a commercial agreement." “The LDCs and developing countries in general are the victims and not the cause of global declines in fish stocks,” said The Gambia, the coordinator of the LDC group. It highlighted several distributional aspects, noting that: * LDC fleets account for under 6.5% of global catches by tonnage, citing FAO data. * LDC subsidies within the Agreement’s scope represent 1.7% of global capacity-enhancing subsidies. * More than a third of all catches in LDC exclusive economic zones are taken by foreign fleets, made viable by subsidies. Barbados cautioned that members were bringing "larger political issues" into a text intended to discipline the largest subsidizers, adding that "we are doing generational damage by continuing to delay." AGRICULTURE Against the backdrop of the unfulfilled mandates in agriculture, the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS) met on 23 September, featuring 37 interventions. During the meeting, members agreed to hold further presentations by the Secretariat on the negotiating history. However, views on public stockholding (PSH) for food security purposes in developing countries and the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) remained divided, and "no consensus emerged on either issue," according to an LDC group representative. Members still disagree on whether previously decided issues should be prioritized and their link to WTO reform. Developing countries have also raised doubts about whether the WTO remains the right forum, said a person who asked not to be named. The LDC group pointedly asked at the meeting as to "whether the WTO can still serve as the forum" for food security objectives, while Thailand questioned whether the agriculture talks are "fit for purpose." Barbados stated that history lessons "will not provide a breakthrough," signaling a temporary move away from the Single Undertaking to deliver for food-insecure members. In response to the DG’s remark that one in four calories consumed worldwide is traded and that food security depends on trade, India noted that only around 17% of global food production enters trade. India stated that "trade alone cannot ensure food security," calling for PSH, the SSM, and cotton to be concluded on their own merits without linkage. Australia, a leading voice of the farm-exporting Cairns Group, pointed to two sources of blockage without naming specific members. Without naming the US, the European Union, and Japan, Australia said "some of the largest developed members" raise “level playing field” concerns on industrial goods while retaining entitlements under the Agreement on Agriculture that few other members hold. Without naming India, Australia criticized another large member for insisting that work cannot proceed until its own issue is resolved, calling it "a recipe for deadlock." New Zealand cited the OECD findings of record support and protection for agriculture over the past decade, while India recalled that the Cotton-4 (C4) initiative has been pending since 2003. S&DT Regarding the CTD-SS, the chair, Ambassador Kadra Ahmed Hassan (Djibouti), stated that further “work will depend on how members and the G90 decide to take this forward," leaving the next step to the proponents. Brazil flagged the lack of progress on the TRIMs proposal, while warning against reducing the development track on WTO reform to the "graduation" of developing members or restricting access to treaty-embedded S&DT. India said that the Doha mandate to make S&DT precise, effective, and operational remains unfulfilled after 25 years. On the schedule of WTO reform meetings, the LDC group noted that WTO reform meetings clashed with Fish Week 1, "leading to very divided attention," and that the LDCs and developing countries are not given timely information or adequate time to reflect. The Pacific Group stated that overlapping meetings had resulted in "our de facto exclusion from key discussions (on reforms)." Bangladesh, India, Paraguay, and the Caricom raised the same concern; India said that the reform schedule is affecting committees chaired by ambassadors. In effect, the main concern raised by the LDCs, India, and Bangladesh is that the pace and density of the reform process limit the capacity of small missions to participate on an equal footing in a process described as member- driven. Bangladesh asked: “How can WTO actually benefit LDCs and smaller economies, not on paper, but in practice?”. On plurilaterals and decision-making, Singapore, a key member of the “Friends of the System” group, echoing WTO reforms, quoted its Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong describing consensus as often becoming “a mechanism for obstruction and paralysis." It advocated for “coalitions of the willing” within the WTO framework, citing the controversial E-Commerce Agreement (ECA) as an example. The EU, Korea, and New Zealand called for the incorporation of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) and the ECA into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement. The EU and Korea insisted that this should not be conditioned on the reform track and should proceed under Article X:9 of the Marrakesh Agreement. Several other countries raised sharp concerns, with India pointing out that the Interim Arrangement for the Agreement on Electronic Commerce has "no legal standing" within the WTO. Pakistan warned against "legally and institutionally questionable actions to advance the interests of some members." Panama defended consensus as a tool that allows smaller members to participate. The Russian Federation stated that plurilaterals are "not a silver bullet," while Paraguay warned against “forum shopping” between the reform track and negotiating groups. ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION With the US having severely impaired the enforcement function of the WTO, several members expressed caution regarding the enforcement of current or future trade agreements, according to people familiar with the development. Indonesia, the Pacific Group, Bangladesh, and Brazil tied WTO reform to restoring the two-tier dispute settlement system. The Pacific Group recalled the MC12 commitment, reaffirmed at MC13, to a fully functioning system by 2024. Indonesia stated that without it, rights "risk becoming unenforceable and obligations merely voluntary." Brazil cautioned that “it is difficult to negotiate new commitments when existing commitments are not being respected. We are seeing pressure on tariff commitments and on the MFN principle.” On digital trade and remittances, Members were concerned about the lack of consensus on the e-commerce work programme and moratorium since MC14. Nigeria stated that the absence of progress since Yaounde sends "an unhelpful signal." Barbados and the Pacific Group regretted that the WTO no longer has a dedicated multilateral space to discuss the development aspects of digital trade. The African Group regretted the failure at MC14 to adopt a decision on lowering the cost of cross-border remittances. Barbados pointed to around US$730 billion in remittances to low- and middle-income countries last year, roughly four times total official development assistance. Meanwhile, Nepal, speaking in the wake of the devastating August floods, called the disaster "a red flag" and pressed for work on trade, climate resilience, and food security. Barbados proposed exploring the temporary suspension of WTO rules to allow vulnerable countries to recover after disasters. Pakistan suggested a crisis-response outcome with time-bound measures of support, while Jamaica stressed on the policy space needed to support recovery when shocks exceed domestic capacity. +
|
||
