|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct26/20) WTO:
ACP challenges facilitator on reform process, "listening rooms" Geneva, 19 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Members of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Group on 15 October severely questioned the facilitator regarding the decision to convene informal meetings on the World Trade Organization (WTO) reform track on development in "silos and listening rooms." The Group demanded clarity "on the configuration and intended outcome of these consultations," said people familiar with the development. During a meeting with Ambassador Nthisana Motsete-Phillips of Botswana, the facilitator tasked with overseeing discussions on the WTO reform track on development, the 90-odd member group sought to understand why she had sent an invitation stating that she "wanted to engage in smaller configurations rather than in plenary mode." This meeting took place one day prior to the scheduled informal sessions. Ambassador Tsiu Khathibe of Lesotho, the ACP Coordinator, asked the facilitator whether the session was "intended to be an exchange between you and the ACP Group as a whole, with all ACP Members contributing? Or is it intended to be consultation involving other WTO Members listening in?" The ACP coordinator stated that "it would be helpful to distinguish a meeting with the Group from a discussion among Members across groups." He explained to the facilitator that "the ACP Group, as well as the African Group and LDC Group, coordinates its collective positions internally," adding that "we do not normally formulate or negotiate those positions in a setting where other delegations are listening to the Group's discussion with a facilitator." Consequently, the ACP Group asserted that "this consultation should therefore not be treated as an internal ACP Group coordination meeting or as a substitute for the Group's own deliberations." The coordinator clarified that members of the Group "can present our collective position, and individual ACP Members can explain their concerns if they wish." Addressing potential fragmentation, Ambassador Khathibe noted that "CARICOM and Pacific Groups can discuss as they wish," but emphasised that "the ACP coalition should not be taken as divided." Concerns over "listening rooms" The Group raised specific concerns regarding the use of "listening rooms" for group consultations, asking the facilitator: "Does that arrangement also apply to this ACP Group meeting? Who would be able to listen, and would those delegations have any opportunity to ask questions or respond? What is the purpose of allowing others to listen to an ACP exchange with you, rather than providing a forum in which Members can engage directly with one another?" While the ACP Group stated that it supports "transparency," it questioned "how this format advances an interactive, Member-driven process." The Group reminded the facilitator that "listening to separate group exchanges does not provide the same opportunity as discussing proposals, testing options and responding to concerns across groups and Members." They further asked, "when and through what format will that direct exchange take place?" The ACP Group urged "the facilitator to clarify the process going forward and identify practical questions, followed by transparent, open-ended exchanges on the priority themes." Ambassador Khathibe emphasized that "Members should be able to engage with the proponents, contribute written questions and responses, and consult their Groups and capitals before conclusions are drawn." Regarding accountability, the 90-member group questioned "how will the consultations be reported?" They requested that the facilitator "distinguish collective Group positions, individual Member contributions and your own assessment" so that "members should be able to correct the record." Furthermore, they conveyed that "interest in an option should not be presented as agreement, and the report or matrix should not acquire negotiated status or imply an agreed deadline for outcomes." +
|
||
