|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr21/20) Washington DC, 28 Apr (D. Ravi Kanth) – The United States, the European Union and other major developed countries on 27 April obdurately refused to engage with the Group of 90 developing and least-developed countries on improving special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions in the WTO Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Customs Valuation. Effectively, the Northern hegemons of the global trading system signaled their intention to stymie any outcome on developmental issues being raised by around 100 developing and least-developed countries in the run-up to the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) to be held in Geneva from 30 November, said trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. While the US wants members to engage on its proposal on the negotiating function of the WTO that aims to bring about differentiation/graduation among developing countries for availing of S&DT at the General Council meeting on 5 May, it has refused to make the G90’s proposed 10 Agreement-specific provisions “efficient and effective,” trade envoys said. The so-called Northern reform agenda on developmental issues being echoed by the Biden-Harris administration appears to be a replica of what the previous Trump administration had ruthlessly pursued, trade envoys said. The chair of the Doha trade and development negotiating body, Ambassador Kadra Ahmed Hassan from Djibouti, convened a meeting on 27 April to elicit responses from the major developed countries on two G90 proposals on improving S&DT provisions in the WTO’s Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade and Customs Valuation, respectively. This is the third meeting on the G90 proposals, beginning with the first meeting in February on the Enabling Clause and on accession, and the second meeting on “proposal 1 concerning the TRIMs (Trade-Related Investment Measures) Agreement and proposal 9 concerning Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (transfer of technology).” The third meeting, held on 27 April, focused on two issues concerning the “Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and Proposal 7 concerning the Agreement on Customs Valuation and Decision on Minimum Values (which is a major demand of the LDCs).” Ahead of the meeting, the chair sent an email on 19 April, asking members to focus on each proposal by answering two questions. The questions are: (1) on which elements of the proposal might convergence be found, and (2) “where do the difficulties lie in the proposal and why, and how could these be overcome.” In their proposal on improvements in the TBT Agreement, as contained in document JOB/TNC/79, the G90 members clearly stated that the “developed country Members shall provide developing and least developed country Members facing capacity constraints at least a 180-day comment period before the adoption of the measure. The period shall commence with the circulation of the notification by the WTO Secretariat. Upon request, a longer period of time shall be granted for LDCs.” The other proposed provisions for improvement in the TBT Agreement include: (1) A developed country Member proposing a technical regulation or standard shall consult directly, at an early stage, with any developing and least developed country Member facing capacity constraints exporting a product that would be covered by the proposed technical regulations or standards. (2) Where a developing country Member or least developed country Member is or will be adversely affected by a proposed or final technical regulation or standard taken by a developed country Member, the following procedures shall apply: (3) Where the technical regulation or standard allows scope for phased introduction, the G90 members demanded longer time-frames for compliance with the measure which shall be accorded to products of interest to developing and least developed country Members facing capacity constraints so as to maintain opportunities for their exports. (4) The phrase “reasonable interval” referred to in paragraph 12 of Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade shall be understood to mean a period of not less than 18 months. (5) Where investments are required in order for exporting developing and least developed country Members facing capacity constraints to fulfil a technical regulation or standard proposed or applied by a developed country Member, the developed country Member shall provide financial and technical assistance required for compliance with the technical regulation or standard. (6) Where the technical regulation or standard is adopted in urgent circumstances where urgent problems of safety, health or environment arise or threaten to arise for a Member, a developed country Member shall provide a developing or least developed country Member that is or will be adversely affected by the proposed or final technical regulation or standard compensatory adjustment so as to ensure maintaining the market share of the developing or least developed country Members in their export markets and supporting the technological and infrastructural capabilities of the concerned developing or least developed country. CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT In a similar vein, the G90 members called for improving certain provisions concerning S&DT in the Customs Valuation Agreement. They include: * Considering least developed country Members continue to lack the necessary capacity to implement the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Customs Valuation Agreement”), the least developed country Members shall be allowed to use minimum or reference values up to 10% of their tariff lines when they are in difficulty utilizing the rest of valuation techniques to addressing the issue of import under-invoicing. * Considering least developed country members continue to lack the necessary capacity to implement the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Customs Valuation Agreement”), where a least-developed country member continues to lack the necessary capacity to establish the truth or accuracy of declared values, implementation of the transaction value for customs valuation purposes will not be required until implementation capacity has been acquired, through technical and/or financial assistance or increased customs cooperation. * Members agree to conclude, on request by the relevant LDC Member or developing country Member, Customs Mutual Assistance Agreements, or customs cooperation agreements that include inter alia provisions and mechanisms to exchange information about values, within particular LDCs and developing countries that consider themselves to have lack of access to price data to enable a reliable determination of the truth or accuracy of declared values. All through the three meetings on the G90 proposals, the US along with the European Union, Japan, and other major developed countries adopted “stonewalling” tactics by refusing to engage on any of the six issues, said trade envoys, who asked not to be identified. Trade envoys from developing countries expressed their sharp disappointment, saying it does not augur well if the US and other developed countries continue to block their core developmental issues ahead of MC12, to be held in Geneva from 30 November. DOHA AGRICULTURE TALKS In a separate development, WTO members made little progress on 23 April on the likely agenda of deliverables in the Doha agriculture talks at MC12 to be held later this year, hedging their expectations on what might happen in the fisheries subsidies negotiations in July. At a meeting of the Doha agriculture negotiating body on 23 April, members stuck to their differing priorities that seem to be mired in linkages and conditions, said a person, who preferred not to be quoted. The new chair of the Doha agriculture talks, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, urged members to finalize key elements of an agreement on agriculture that could be concluded at MC12. The chair is promoting a mix of outcomes on transparency, which is being canvassed by the United States, the European Union, and the Cairns Group, as well as a general framework for MC12, the person said. The meeting witnessed sharply differing views on almost all issues with little commonality of views on the mandated issues, the person suggested. At one end, the United States and the European Union want to settle for issues concerning transparency-related provisions in all three pillars – domestic support, market access, and export restrictions – but not the mandated issues such as the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security or the special safeguard mechanism. The EU said it cannot accept a standalone outcome on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs, insisting instead on new rules that could give more equitable access to all members to existing domestic support tools in the face of criticism about the existing asymmetries in the Uruguay Round Agreement. The Cairns Group of farm exporting countries led by Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay among others pressed for a framework on domestic support, including committing to “cap and reduce the sum of current global agricultural trade- and production-distorting domestic support entitlements by at least half by 2030.” Canada echoed the Cairns Group priorities that include (1) a framework on domestic support; (2) transparency across the board, and (3) a standalone resolution on the World Food Program exemption. In sharp contrast, a large majority of developing countries, including China, India and South Africa among others, as well as the representatives of the African Group and the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific) Group demanded the elimination of aggregate measurement of support (AMS) that has provided a competitive advantage to the US, the EU, and Japan (which spoke for the farm-defensive Group of 10 countries). In contrast to the framework on domestic support proposed by the Cairns Group, the developing countries also called for progress in domestic support talks to address the historical inequities built into the Uruguay Round Agreement. China, India, and South Africa spoke about the vast differences and disparities in the per capita subsidies provided by the US and the EU, in comparison to the developing countries. Burkina Faso, on behalf of the Cotton-four countries of Chad, Mali, Benin, and Burkina Faso, dramatically lowered its ambition for MC12 by asking for a mere transparency-related outcome in the cotton sector. It is clear that there is no movement towards a common agenda of deliverables for MC12, and much would depend on whether members can progress in the fisheries subsidies negotiations by July. If there is no progress in the fisheries subsidies negotiations, it is safe to assume that agriculture too could fall by the wayside said a person, who asked not to be quoted. The meeting of 23 April remained inconclusive, as issues relating to the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security for developing countries and the special safeguard mechanism are expected to be discussed on 28 April.
|
||
