|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Jan22/12) Geneva, 26 Jan (D. Ravi Kanth) – The chair of the WTO General Council has decided to convene a dedicated open-ended informal meeting on 27 January on the issue of the WTO’s response to the pandemic, including the temporary TRIPS waiver, as India upped the ante for an expeditious decision on the waiver to combat the worsening COVID-19 pandemic. At an informal General Council (GC) meeting on 25 January, India expressed grave concern that, despite continued negotiations on the TRIPS waiver since October 2020, there has been no resolution to the issue even as the pandemic has wreaked havoc across countries, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Sri Lanka also shared its concerns on several issues at the meeting. The GC chair, Ambassador Dacio Castillo from Honduras, announced that amidst sharp divergences on what needs to be done on the WTO’s response to the pandemic, including the IPR (intellectual property rights) component, “I intend to listen to Members’ views on how to take this work forward in a practical, pragmatic, result-oriented manner, so that we can sketch out together the path forward.” He also indicated that there has been no agreement on India’s call to convene a virtual ministerial meeting to address the WTO’s response to the pandemic including the temporary TRIPS waiver during his consultations, as some members sought “a holistic, comprehensive, and balanced outcome comprising both the trade policy aspects, as well as the TRIPS waiver.” It seems clear that the European Union, members of the Ottawa Group of countries led by Canada, and the United States want to link the TRIPS waiver with the controversial recommendations made by Walker’s report (on the WTO’s response to the pandemic), said people, who asked not to be quoted. The chair, however, admitted that there are “divergent views” on how to proceed with Walker’s draft report (contained in document Job/GC/281). Many global civil society organizations have severely criticized Walker’s report for advancing prescriptive market access commitments to fighting the pandemic instead of addressing the temporary TRIPS waiver. However, attempts are now being made to resurrect the controversial Walker report and link it with the TRIPS waiver. Without naming these delegations, the GC chair said that “several delegations said they consider it (the Walker report) a good basis and caution (against) “reopening” the text, as it may unravel the work that has already been accomplished.” Ambassador Castillo said “I heard some delegations note that I, in my capacity, could undertake a process similar to that on the outcome document. Other delegations mentioned the possibility of a Facilitator.” As reported in the SUNS last month, some delegations want to propose either the current TRIPS Council chair, Ambassador Dagfinn Sorli from Norway, or one of the envoys from the Ottawa Group of countries as a facilitator to oversee the negotiations on the WTO’s response to the pandemic. SHARP DIVERGENCES At the informal meeting, the GC chair acknowledged that there are sharp divergences among members on when to reschedule the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) and whether it should be held in-person or virtually; whether a virtual ministerial meeting could be held exclusively on the WTO’s response to the pandemic; and whether a virtual ministerial meeting could be held on other issues such as fisheries subsidies and proposed WTO reforms (see SUNS #9499 dated 25 January 2022). During the consultations, the GC chair said that he “recalled that in December, Members stated clearly that the WTO had to sustain the momentum and build on the solid progress registered in the lead-up to the postponed MC12 – a view which was also expressed by many at the Informal General Council meeting on 10 January.” He also noted during the consultations that members “continue to operate in an extremely uncertain and challenging environment.” The GC chair emphasized “on the need to find ways to sustain the momentum to continue making progress and work towards delivering results in Geneva, especially – but surely not only – on issues of critical importance, such as the WTO response to the pandemic.” He apparently posed three questions to members, namely “how to proceed with work on the WTO response to the pandemic so that we arrive at an understanding on how the WTO can contribute to mitigate the severe economic impact of this crisis and help Members recover in a strong and expeditious manner”; “how to proceed on the substantive issues under the General Council, including the Outcome Document, which also covered issues of systemic importance to Members, such as WTO reform and the Appellate Body”; and “how to go about convening MC12.” As regards the convening of MC12, the chair said “most delegations noted that given the epidemiological situation, it may be premature and difficult to set a new date at this juncture.” Several members said that “more clarity on the global sanitary situation will be needed before a precise date can be set,” while some proposed that it may be useful to consider having a possible window in which to potentially convene MC12, as this may provide some pressure and direction to carry work forward in Geneva. During the consultations, in reference to the date for MC12, the GC chair said that he “heard many delegations refer to June/July, and a few to February/March.” Apparently, without naming the delegation, he said that one delegation cautioned against convening MC12 in September. Aside from the epidemiological situation and the substance, he said “some delegations pointed out that any new date for the conference should also provide sufficient lead time for planning and organization.” The GC chair said some delegations mentioned “the possibility of a stocktaking meeting in one- or two-months’ time, noting two possible formats – either virtually at Ministerial level, or at the Ambassadorial level in Geneva in a meeting of the General Council.” The GC chair said that “a handful of delegations stressed the importance of convening an in-person Ministerial Conference,” noting that a virtual conference was not conducive to negotiations. Commenting on the virtual format, the GC chair said “several delegations say that this format could be considered for Ministers to adopt decisions but that the actual work and the heavy lifting would have to be completed in Geneva, ahead of any virtual conference.” He said several members cautioned “against setting a date for a virtual meeting or several virtual meetings now, stressing the need to get to work first, identify bottlenecks and carry on relevant technical work in Geneva to advance the discussions.” As regards the proposed virtual ministerial meeting on the WTO’s response to the pandemic including the TRIPS waiver, as demanded by India in December 2021, the chair said “members’ views remain divergent on this.” The chair said “several delegations said that the urgency of the matter merited a dedicated Ministerial meeting and that this matter should not be traded off with other issues as part of a package, given its nature.” The chair noted that “several delegations were open to considering a virtual Ministerial meeting on the WTO response to the pandemic, including the TRIPS waiver once sufficient progress has been registered in Geneva.” He said some other delegations expressed concerns that “by addressing only one specific issue, momentum on other issues might be lost.” “Although these members agreed that work on key issues should not wait before convening MC12, they reiterated that progress would need to be made in all key areas, including on fisheries subsidies, agriculture, and WTO reform, as well as the pandemic response.” Without naming the delegation, he said “one delegation stressed that by covering all issues, a successful outcome would be more likely, as it would provide Members with the necessary flexibility in their positions.” Ambassador Castillo argued that “despite the different views on reconvening MC12, delegations agree to continue work in Geneva”, and that there “seems to be convergence that work should build on last year’s progress in all areas; and proceed in a transparent and inclusive manner, taking into account all perspectives.” SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES As regards the substantive issues, particularly the outcome document for MC12, the chair said that “delegations seemed to agree on the importance of preserving the work accomplished in December.” Ambassador Castillo said “some delegations were of the view that the document should not be reopened, but rather set aside until a new date for MC12 is agreed upon. Some delegations also noted that the finalization and adoption of the outcome document was dependent upon discussions and outcomes in other areas.” On the controversial issue of WTO reform, Ambassador Castillo said “several suggestions were made on how work could proceed. One delegation noted that WTO reform requires a process that does not end with a Ministerial Conference, and thus suggested the creation of an institutional framework for discussion. Others noted that the General Council was the appropriate forum for such a discussion.” He said some delegations sounded caution in discussing WTO reform, suggesting that they wanted to “avoid cherry picking, as this may impact the overall balance achieved in the outcome document.” Significantly, the chair said that “some delegations noted that the pandemic response, WTO reform, Appellate Body matter and the negotiations on fisheries subsidies and agriculture remain their top priorities.” WTO’S RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC The GC chair said that “all delegations that came forward noted that the WTO response to the pandemic remains a top priority for Members and the Organization as a whole.” He said three main points emerged from his consultations: 1. Many delegations consider that only a holistic, comprehensive, and balanced outcome comprising both the trade policy-related aspects, as well as the TRIPS waiver, will be credible. Delegations seemed to agree that discussions on both would have to proceed in tandem. 2. Delegations agree that a lot of work has gone into the Facilitator text (contained in document JOB/GC/281), but there are divergent views on how to proceed with this draft. Several delegations said that they consider it a good basis and caution against “reopening” the text, as it may unravel the work that has already been accomplished. He said that “some delegations consider the Facilitator text as too “weak” and diluted. Others view it as too prescriptive.” 3. Some delegations also referred to the ongoing high-level DG-led consultations with a few Members on the IP-related aspects. One suggestion was to have a dedicated transparency meeting of the TRIPS Council on these consultations, at the appropriate moment. The chair said that he intends to convene a dedicated open-ended informal meeting on the WTO response to the pandemic on Thursday (27 January) morning. “The director-general is also expected to participate in the dedicated session. Looking ahead, we have only four weeks left to the first General Council of the year, which is scheduled for 23 and 24 February. I heard delegations wishing to engage constructively and expeditiously and to get to work, and I continue to stand ready to assist in my capacity as GC Chair.” He said that it is his intention to “work together with the Director-General and you, the Members, in the weeks ahead towards a credible and comprehensive WTO response to the pandemic, to see how to build on the work that has already been accomplished and how to further improve it.” In her intervention, WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said members have to find “smart” ways to accelerate work on all fronts. She also informed members that she is going to restructure the WTO Secretariat on 1 February based on the McKinsey & Company report’s recommendations. Some directors have apparently resigned before their retirement was due because of alleged resentment in the Secretariat over the DG’s seemingly arbitrary functioning, said people familiar with the development
|
||
