|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Mar22/09) Geneva, 30 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) – Amidst calls for adopting a “business-like” approach for the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12), tentatively scheduled for 12-15 June, the WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala wants members “to act together and participate in convergence building” on “the most essential areas” such as “the pandemic response, fisheries subsidies, agriculture, and WTO reform.” Given the manner in which major decisions are seemingly being negotiated on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis in an allegedly “opaque” negotiating process with the participation of a small set of countries, as it seems to have happened in the TRIPS waiver discussions, it seems somewhat incongruous for the DG to claim that, “we try to set an example of what it is about multilateralism that is so needed by the world.” In her statement at the informal General Council (GC) meeting on 28 March and later circulated as a restricted document (Job/GC/299), the DG claimed that “Multilateralism is one of the instruments that draws us together to address global challenges that we are grappling with.” She called for working “for the benefit of the people we are here to serve – especially during these very trying times.” However, her actions, after becoming the DG on 1 March 2021, seem to demonstrate how assiduously she is working to promote the trade-related interests of the Northern countries, whether it is on the TRIPS waiver, fisheries subsidies, WTO reforms, or agriculture, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. In her statement at the informal GC meeting, for example, the DG appears to have placed the real development issues raised by a large majority of developing and least-developed countries (LDCs) such as effective improvements in special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions as well as the LDC issues in a lower bracket. The DG said that “WTO reforms remain a critical matter for the Membership,” suggesting that “finding a mutually agreeable way to advance these discussions has become an integral component of our preparations for MC12 – and should remain so.” In her previous statement at the General Council on 23 February, Ms Okonjo-Iweala had said that “for Members to move forward, we require a candid discussion, at the appropriate time, on your expectations about what WTO reform means.” However, there is no clarity yet on what the proposed WTO reforms are about and whether they are intended to advance the Northern trade agenda involving doing away with the principle of consensus-based decision making in order to pursue plurilateral negotiations in areas of interest to the developed countries, or strengthening the core multilateral development-oriented principles as laid out in the Marrakesh Agreement. Given their vulnerability, “the LDCs face challenges related to higher food and energy prices – further compounding the economic effects of slow recovery from the pandemic,” she said. However, for much of the LDC issues, the main opposition is coming from the United States, the European Union and other developed countries and not the developing countries. The DG is apparently aware of this reality but seems to have done little about resolving the LDC demands, said an LDC member, who asked not to be quoted. PANDEMIC RESPONSE In her statement at the informal General Council meeting on 28 March, the DG welcomed the appointment of Ambassador Dacio Castillo from Honduras as the new facilitator on the WTO’s response to the pandemic, suggesting that the matter should be treated with the sense of urgency that it deserves. However, she did not mention the “trade and health” issues at the informal GC meeting. However, in her last GC statement on 23 February, Ms Okonjo-Iweala had said that “you all agree that a WTO response to this and future pandemics has to be a comprehensive and balanced package made up of IP and trade and health related aspects.” Commenting on “the TRIPS Waiver,” the DG said that “we need to be able to move forward on this issue soon.” Without referring to the leaked IP text or even to the United States, the European Union, India, and South Africa, the DG said at the informal GC meeting on 28 March that “there are still a few issues to sort out with the Quad.” Even before there is a formal agreement and notification by all the four members, the DG has been canvassing vigorously with several coalitions of countries at the WTO to accept the text, which is being called a “sub-optimal” outcome by some members of the “Quad”. “But our hope is that we can move this matter forward to the TRIPS Council as soon as possible,” she said in her statement at the informal GC meeting. The DG maintained that “whatever outcome – these will all be exposed transparently to the Membership and discussed in the TRIPS Council in a manner that we can move this forward.” Ms Okonjo-Iweala reported that “the Multilateral Leaders’ Task Force met again on 1 March” which “had a productive meeting with all ten CEOs of vaccine manufacturers present.” She said that “we know that we now have enough in terms of production but there is a persistent issue of inequity of access that is there as well as the future diversification of production capacity.” The DG said that there are “distribution problems, infrastructure issues with cold chains and personnel shortage, among others.” “There are also a lot of discontinuities on the ground and supply fragmentation,” she said, suggesting that “we need to solve these issues – now.” Ms Okonjo-Iweala claimed that the meeting she had with the CEOs and “the promise to work on these issues together later before the next meeting gives us some hope that, together with the other multilateral Heads, we will be able to see concretely on the ground in the countries how we deal with these issues and move forward on the issue of equity of access to vaccines.” Interestingly, in one of the meetings of officials from the United States, the European Union, India, and South Africa in January, the DG told the participants that they are not going to get the TRIPS waiver and to settle instead for what is on the table in the form of the EU proposal, said a Quad member, who asked not to be identified. It appears that the DG and her deputy Ms Anabel Gonzalez from Costa Rica, formerly with the Washington-based liberal trade think tank, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, worked in tandem with the European Union and the United States to foist an outcome on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, the member said. Against this backdrop, the DG’s comments on the “TRIPS Waiver” and associated issues raise serious doubts about the credibility and integrity of the outcome, said people familiar with the development. DRAFT OUTCOME DOCUMENT FOR MC12 At the informal GC meeting on 28 March, the GC chair, Ambassador Didier Chambovey from Switzerland, alluded to the second revised draft outcome document for MC12, which remains in square brackets. The latest unofficial room document (RD/GC/17/Rev.2), seen by the SUNS, contains language on the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that, “we (ministers) recognize the need for global solidarity, both for the current pandemic and future ones, to address all barriers to ramping up and diversification of global production as well as distribution of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (incorporate relevant decisions, including outcome of TRIPS discussion).” Yet, the issue of ramping-up the production of diagnostics and therapeutics across countries remains unresolved because of opposition from the US and the EU, said people familiar with the discussions. The revised document says, “we resolve to strengthen the rules-based, non-discriminatory, open, fair, inclusive, equitable and transparent multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core.” It also reaffirms “the principles and objectives set out in the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and underscore the relevance and critical role of international trade and the WTO in global economic recovery, growth, prosperity, alleviation of poverty, welfare of all people, sustainable development and to facilitate cooperation in relation to the protection and preservation of the environment in a manner consistent with respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development.” However, in paragraph 8, which deals with WTO reforms, the developing countries managed to insert their issues such as “development” and the “policy space needs of developing country members and LDCs”. The developing countries also proposed that the Working Group to oversee the WTO reform discussions must remain open to all members. They proposed how the reform discussion must be undertaken, and proposed an Alternative 2 that states: [We agree to review the operations of the WTO with the view to making the necessary reforms to improve its functions, consistent with the principles and objectives of the multilateral trading system as set out in the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and its multilateral trade agreements. The process as well as the outcomes of the review should be transparent, inclusive and give due regard to the development and policy space needs of developing and least-developed countries. The review and its outcomes shall not alter, or in any manner affect, Members’ rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements and agreed mandates. We undertake to engage closely in this process and instruct officials to prepare recommendations. The review shall be undertaken in the dedicated sessions of the General Council led by the General Council Chair and the rules of procedure of the General Council Meetings shall be applicable to these sessions. The General Council shall present a report to the Ministers at the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference on the status of the review.] In paragraph 10 of the draft outcome document, the differences between the developed countries on one side, and the developing countries, on the other, on the WTO’s negotiating function, are laid bare, particularly on the issue of plurilateral negotiations. The developed countries proposed: [We commit to revitalize the WTO negotiating function and to strengthen its rulemaking by facilitating trade negotiations [within the multilateral trading system]. Many Members reaffirm our commitment to exclusive multilateral negotiations. Many other Members believe that new approaches are necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes in WTO negotiations.] In sharp contrast, the developing countries proposed: [We commit to preserve the WTO negotiating function and to strengthen the capacity of the WTO to perform its function as the forum for negotiations among all its Members concerning their multilateral trade relations as collectively decided by the Ministerial Conference, in accordance with Articles II.1 and III.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and other relevant articles of the WTO Agreement, and with a view to strengthening its ability to develop an integrated, more viable multilateral trading system.] Besides the sharp differences on the proposed WTO reforms, the other major issue is the manner in which the European Union and other developed countries are seeking to bring in far-reaching trade-related measures, including carbon pricing, through their proposal on the environment. The developing countries called for enabling the transfer of environmentally sound technologies on mutually agreed terms. The environment proposal states: [We recognize global environmental challenges such as climate change and related natural disasters, loss of biodiversity and pollution. We note the importance of the contribution of the multilateral trading system to promote the UN 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions. We reaffirm support to the UNFCCC, and the Paris Agreement and note the outcome of COP26. We believe trade and environmental policies should be mutually supportive and contribute to optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objectives of sustainable development. We reaffirm that measures to protect and preserve the environment should be WTO consistent [, not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade] and safeguard the multilateral trading system. We reaffirm the importance of providing appropriate support to developing country Members and LDCs in order to help their transitions, including through technological innovations, towards resource-efficient and sustainable development. We will reinvigorate our efforts geared towards enhancing the resilience of these Members and to better enable them to seize sustainable trade opportunities including through Aid for Trade [, transfer of environmentally sound technology on mutually agreed terms] and other capacity-building support that assists in the promotion of production and trade of goods and services that are respectful of the environment. We note the role of the Committee on Trade and Environment as a standing forum dedicated to dialogue among Members on the relationship between trade rules and environmental measures.] TRADE FOR PEACE The draft outcome document for MC12 states: [We acknowledge that trade can play a role in promoting economic development, peace and stability in fragile and conflict affected states (FCS). We invite the Committee on Trade and Development [CTD] to consider these issues and examine their interdependence. We encourage the CTD to report to the General Council on these discussions and the major issues raised on measures which may facilitate the integration of FCS into the multilateral trading system including through WTO accession, to the General Council by the end of 2022.] In conclusion, the draft outcome document for MC12 includes several controversial issues, particularly on the need to alter the WTO’s negotiating function and on the environment, as proposed by the Northern countries. Even though it appears to include language proposed by the developing countries on special and differential treatment and ensuring that WTO reforms are squarely anchored on the Marrakesh Agreement, it remains to be seen how it will be negotiated in the coming days through the allegedly “opaque” negotiating process.
|
||
