|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (May22/13) Geneva, 30 May (D. Ravi Kanth) – Trade ministers from India and Indonesia have apparently pushed back against the WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s attempts to deliver “Plan B” best endeavour outcomes in agriculture at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12), scheduled for 12-15 June in Geneva, said people familiar with the development. Ahead of a meeting of select countries on 30 May, the DG, at an informal mini-ministerial meeting hosted by Switzerland in Davos on 25 May, appears to have shared the gist of three documents on the three deliverables in agriculture involving agricultural reform, the food security declaration, and the decision on the World Food Programme’s (WFP) purchases of food grains without any hindrance (export restrictions) from WTO members. However, the DG seems to have pressured India and Indonesia at the Davos meeting to agree to a binding outcome on fisheries subsidies, WTO reforms, and even on the WTO’s response to the pandemic, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The DG informed ministers about her ongoing process of consultations to arrive at a decision on the draft outcomes prepared by her on issues concerning agricultural reform, food security, and the removal of export restrictions for the WFP to procure food grains, said people familiar with the development. The best endeavour outcomes in agricultural reform will postpone a decision on the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security until the 13th ministerial conference, even though it was already mandated to be concluded at the eleventh ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires in December 2017. To put it in context, the former chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador John Deep Ford of Guyana, had said in a restricted document (JOB/AG/180) on 14 February 2020, “I would like to propose the following elements for a Permanent Solution that Members may work on with a view to achieving an outcome at MC12: — Core provision: Bali-type solution (i.e. a commitment by Members not to challenge through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism compliance of a developing Member with its obligations under Articles 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the AoA); — Product coverage: traditional staple food crops; — Programme coverage: limited extension to new programmes; — Transparency: the Bali transparency provisions, amended to ensure that they are not too onerous by over- straining the already limited capacity of developing Members; — Anti-circumvention and safeguards: Bali anti-circumvention and safeguards provisions, amended to address the concerns of the non-proponents regarding exports from stocks; and — Monitoring: periodic examination by the CoA Regular.” Ambassador Ford said, “I therefore call upon Members to develop proposals taking into account the elements above.” Subsequently, the current chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta of Costa Rica, not only reversed her predecessor’s proposal but appeared to do more damage by saying in document TN/AG/50 issued on 23 November 2021 that “given the importance attached to the PSH issue by several developing country Members, Ministers may, if they so wish, consider revisiting it, bearing in mind the significant divergent positions as outlined above, among the Membership.” In alleged collusion with the United States, Australia, and Brazil among others, Ambassador Peralta said, “my assessment that it would be extremely difficult to achieve a permanent solution at MC12 was not shared by some developing country Members, who insisted that I forward this issue to Ministers for their consideration and decision. Several Members strongly objected to this proposed course of action, notably due to the lack of detailed technical work on elements for a permanent solution and the absence of parallel progress on domestic support.” “The chair has single handedly undermined the permanent solution, which is separate and explicitly de-linked from other negotiations,” said a person, who asked not to be quoted. Apparently, the DG’s draft decision, though seems somewhat closer to the chair’s draft decision, includes some new elements like focused discussion on the reference price, which developing countries had all along raised, said people, who viewed the document. However, Ms Okonjo-Iweala does not appear to be worried whether the decisions are binding or best endeavour in nature, as long as she can claim success at MC12, said people, who asked not to be quoted. She is not one of those Director-Generals who believes in the dictum that a bad outcome is worse than no outcome, said people, who preferred anonymity. The DG’s thinking seems to be closely aligned with what the United States, the European Union and several Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries have all along demanded, that there should be no decision on the permanent solution for PSH programs at MC12, said people, who preferred not to be identified. The US almost single handedly maintained this position at the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017 as well, which eventually ensured that MC11 ended in a stalemate. Apparently, the DG’s proposed work program on the permanent solution for PSH programs will include an intensive work program with specific references to several new elements like the reference period of 1986-88 that contributed to huge distortions in the calculation of AMS (aggregate measurement of support or the most trade- distorting subsidies) and other legal provisions, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Interestingly, the DG’s draft decision, which will be discussed at a meeting of select trade envoys on 30 May, is different from the approach ministers chose for designing the interim deal at Bali in 2013. While developing countries had indeed raised these gaps in the current calculation method in the Agreement on Agriculture, prescribing such elements for future work in the MC12 outcome document could offer an opportunity for countries to further delay an agreement on a permanent solution for PSH programs by arguing the need for prior detailed technical engagement. The DG seems to have lowered the level of ambition in domestic support as well, while proposing best endeavour outcomes for food security by suggesting that countries can maintain export restrictions within the WTO parameters. As regards the outcome concerning food procurement by the WFP, the DG’s plan would involve a best endeavour outcome to prohibit export restrictions while simultaneously allowing the governments to take appropriate measures to address their specific domestic conditions/requirements, said people, who preferred anonymity. The DG’s process appears to have almost discarded the draft agriculture text issued late last year by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Peralta of Costa Rica, said a trade official, who asked not to be identified. Privately, some farm-exporting countries from South America seem concerned that Ambassador Peralta’s draft text, which contains a clear roadmap for reducing domestic support, appears to have been set aside. It appears that Ambassador Peralta is being called back to her capital, SUNS was told. In contrast to the DG’s “Plan B” best endeavour decision on agriculture at the Davos meeting on 25 May, the DG demanded a binding outcome on a brand new fisheries subsidies agreement, and also on a work program on WTO reforms, said people, who asked not to be quoted. INDIA & INDONESIA VOICE COMMON POSITIONS At the Davos meeting, the Indian trade minister Mr Piyush Goyal seems to have fiercely opposed the DG’s plan to push the permanent solution for PSH programs to the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (likely to take place in 2024), insisting that India had waited for an outcome on this issue for the past seven years since the WTO’s tenth ministerial conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015. India apparently asked whether it is fair to postpone outcomes concerning the interests of developing countries while demanding outcomes on an issue such as fisheries subsidies for which active negotiations only began in the Doha Rules negotiating group after 2017. Developing countries also conveyed to the DG that WTO reforms must be anchored on the Marrakesh Agreement, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Indonesia seems to have reminded the DG that the proposed fisheries subsidies agreement has to be substantially improved in regard to special and differential treatment for its low-income, resource-poor and livelihood fishermen and the extension of fishing-related activities up to 200 nautical miles instead of the proposed 12 nautical miles. While the DG’s plan was apparently endorsed by trade ministers from the participating industrialized countries as well as some South American countries at the Davos meeting, India and Indonesia pushed back against a seemingly biased plan to favour “the elephant in the room”, said a capital-based official, who asked not to be identified. Significantly, with lack of movement on the DG’s draft “TRIPS COVID-19” outcome document and the draft outcome document for MC12, particularly on WTO reforms and environment, it appears much would depend on a stocktaking meeting supposed to be held in the first week of June, said people, who asked not to be quoted. INFORMAL TRIPS DRAFTING MEETING Meanwhile, at the informal meeting of the drafting group on the “TRIPS COVID-19” text on 25 May, the chair of the TRIPS Council, Ambassador Lansana Gberie of Sierra Leone, faced a volley of questions on what is the significance of the “revision” of the outcome text that he had issued (JOB/IP/58), when members are already immersed in discussing the working document, which “is a collection of textual proposals and suggestions as of 20 May 2022,” said people familiar with the discussions. Apparently, the chair clarified that the outcome document (JOB/IP/58) that he had issued contains minimal textual changes to the one issued by the Director-General Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on 3 May, adding that it would remain as the basis. The chair’s outcome document revision replaced all references of “patented subject matter” with “subject matter of a patent”. This change reflecting language of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement was suggested by Bangladesh, said people familiar with the discussions. During the negotiations on each square bracket in almost every paragraph of the working document, members apparently got bogged down with conflicting assessments of their respective textual additions, thereby making the progress difficult, said people, who preferred not to be quoted. The discussions seemed to have unraveled, particularly with the probing questions of the United Kingdom and Switzerland, while developing countries stood firm on their concerns, said people, who preferred not to be identified. While there is spirit to complete the discussions soon, it may take several days to complete the process, said a TRIPS delegate from an industrialized country, who preferred anonymity. The Chair also resisted textual suggestions from developing country delegates even as he prioritized the UK and Switzerland textual suggestions, according to sources involved in the negotiations. Privately, doubts are being raised as to whether the US would agree to the issue of removing the second bracket in footnote 1 on the eligibility criterion — “[for the purpose of this Decision, all developing country Members are eligible Members. Developing country members with capacity to export vaccines are encouraged to opt out from this Decision.][For the purpose of this Decision, developing country Members who exported more than 10 percent of the world exports of COVID-19 vaccine doses in 2021 are not eligible Members]” –, said people, who asked not to be quoted. China has said unequivocally that it is prepared to opt out from availing of the “Decision” contingent upon removing the second bracket in footnote 1. For many developing countries, the first set of brackets also remain a concern for it normalizes the pressure not to use the decision and excludes export by developed countries. Apparently, the US may not agree to the removal of the second bracket because it could upset Washington’s strategy of bringing about differentiation among developing countries for availing of flexibilities, said people, who preferred not to be quoted. While the US seems to remain silent during discussions on the “TRIPS COVID-19” text on grounds of its ongoing consultations with domestic stakeholders as well as with lawmakers in the US Congress, doubts are being cast whether the positions adopted by the UK and Switzerland appear to be influenced by the US, said several people and some experts, who preferred not to be quoted. Recently, the head of IPFMA (International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), Mr Thomas Cueni, asked about the usefulness and relevance of the draft TRIPS COVID-19 outcome, when vaccines are available aplenty, a stand that is somewhat reflected in the questions raised by Switzerland and the UK, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The developing countries seem to be very concerned about several TRIPS-plus provisions (such as excessive notification requirements, anti-diversion measures, etc.) attached to the use of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, said people, who asked not to be quoted. BRAZIL’S PROPOSAL Interestingly, at a time when the contours of MC12 appear somewhat bleak, Brazil has come out with a proposal that calls for ministerial meetings to be held every year. In its proposal (Job/GC/310), Brazil said the delays in convening ministerial meetings several times in the recent past “(i) weaken ministerial oversight and guidance; (ii) generate unnecessary uncertainties on the work ahead; and (iii) add more pressure on Members to deliver meaningful results at Ministerials.” According to Brazil’s world view, the WTO membership should consider more frequent ministerial engagement like the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund/World Bank and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) among others. Brasilia says that “yearly high-level meetings would provide the opportunity for the whole WTO membership to show their continued commitment to the rules-based multilateral trading system; bring fresh approaches to Geneva’s long outstanding issues; and, also importantly, to address specific trade-related issues and urgencies in a timely manner, allowing the Organization to deliver results, as new challenges arise.” It says that “the current situation regarding agricultural supply chains and food security and our efforts to articulate a timely WTO response certainly illustrate the potential for more frequent ministerial engagement with the organization.” The “annual ministerial conferences would greatly contribute to rebuild much needed trust among WTO Members, increasing willingness to cooperate at the multilateral level”, Brazil claimed, adding that “strengthening high-level dialogue will contribute to enhancing effectiveness and responsiveness in all three pillars of the WTO, while shielding the multilateral trading system from a backlash of protectionism”. In a draft ministerial decision for consideration at MC12, Brazil said that “following the twelfth Ministerial Conference, the Ministerial Conference shall meet once every year. Its next meeting shall be held in 2023.”
|
||
