THIRD WORLD NETWORK INFORMATION SERVICE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Questions raised on exempting WFP purchases from export restrictions
Published in SUNS #9258 dated 21 December 2020

Geneva, 18 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) -  India has raised some fundamental issues concerning the draft General Council decision on exemption from export restrictions of foodstuffs purchased by the World Food Programme (WFP) and the linkage to the amended Bali "peace clause", a move that would require serious negotiations before taking any decision at this juncture, people familiar with the development said.

Members of the Ottawa Group, led by Canada and Singapore, have stepped up their efforts at the World Trade Organization for a General Council (GC) decision on export prohibitions as a confidence-building measure to demonstrate that the WTO is capable of delivering a decision.

India, Pakistan, and Tanzania among others had earlier raised serious concerns that the draft GC decision could adversely affect their food security programs.

India had asked the proponents two questions on 15 December. The questions include:

1. Since the objective of this draft decision is to make food-aid available to the most vulnerable people in times of a crisis, will this decision also encompass the provision of exports to the WFP (World Food Program) from the PSH (public stockholding) stocks of a supplying Member can part with some of their PSH stock for humanitarian procurement by the WFP jeopardizing their own domestic food security? After all, food is food, and it should not matter which stock it is coming out of as long as the exports are for a non-commercial, humanitarian purpose.

2. Given the food security objective of the draft decision, India said that it would like to understand if this Decision includes bilateral, non-commercial, humanitarian food assistance provided by a supplying country to its neighbouring countries/region out of PSH stocks?

India said that a strong, meaningful and balanced outcome on food security as part of the draft Decision must include the following two essential elements.

They include: (1) necessary safeguards that provide comfort to supplying Members that their own food security will not be jeopardized as a result of this Decision; and (2) widening the scope of food aid in the Decision to include bilateral food aid for humanitarian purposes from PSH stocks, along with food aid channelled through the WFP.

Earlier, in their proposal (Job/Ag/125) before the Buenos Aires ministerial meeting in December 2017, Norway and Singapore had proposed that "any developing Member seeking coverage of programmes shall ensure that stocks procured under such programmes do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members."

Singapore and Norway also included a footnote to their proposal, saying that "this provision shall not apply for food purchases by the World Food Programme for non-commercial humanitarian purposes."

Therefore, the proponents of the WFP proposal, particularly Norway and Singapore, need to provide an assurance to the developing countries with regard to their access to the Bali "peace clause" when they facilitate WFP purchases through their food stocks, said a negotiator, who preferred not to be quoted.

Apparently when some developing countries sought to include their food security related aspect in the draft WFP decision, Canada and Singapore apparently indicated that their view will be incorporated in the preamble, but not in the operating part of the decision, the negotiator said.

In the draft revised decision, the proponents, led by Canada and Singapore, claimed the decision will ostensibly help the World Food Program (WFP) during the COVID-19 pandemic, said a negotiator, who asked not to be quoted.

The draft decision says that (1) "members shall not impose export prohibitions and restrictions on foodstuffs purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Program," and (2) "it is understood that Members' food security shall not be jeopardized as a result of these purchases."

The WFP procures its vital food grains and other products not from the farmers directly, but from the global agribusiness behemoths such as Cargill, the negotiator said.

Moreover, some of the proponents maintain restrictive policies on the supply of dairy products, while campaigning for the GC decision, the negotiator said.

The proponents of the proposal, Canada, which coordinates the Ottawa Group of industrialized countries, and Singapore emphasized the importance of a GC decision on export restrictions, an issue that was never resolved during the last 20 years of the Doha agriculture negotiations, said another negotiator, who asked not to be quoted.

Showcasing the GC decision as a "confidence-building measure" in the absence of an agreement on fisheries subsidies, the proponents initially sought a strong agreement, but appear to be ready for a "watered down" agreement in the face of opposition from India and Pakistan, and some African countries during the meeting, the negotiator said.

Due to the continued differences on the proposal by the proponents, the fate of the proposal will be decided on 18 December, the negotiator said.

The language proposed by the Brazilian facilitator says:

"In the view of the critical humanitarian support provided by the World Food Program, made more urgent in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crisis,

With the understanding that the World Food Program always takes procurement decisions on the basis of the principles to "do no harm" to the supplying member and promote local and regional food procurement,

Regarding and reaffirming Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI of GATT 1994,

Decides as follows:

1. Members shall not impose export prohibitions and restrictions on foodstuffs purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Program.

2. It is understood that Members' food security shall not be jeopardized as a result of these purchases."

The sponsors of the GC decision on export prohibitions include the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Liechtenstein, and developing countries such as Albania, Angola, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Grenada, Guyana, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the Solomon Islands, and Chinese Taipei among others.

And more countries are expected to join the proponents, said another negotiator, who asked not to be quoted.

Earlier, the sponsors argued that "in view of the critical humanitarian support provided by the World Food Programme, made more urgent in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises," the General Council decides that "members shall not impose export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuffs purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Programme."

But in the face of opposition from India, Pakistan, and Tanzania among others to the language and the decision, an additional safeguard was included in the latest draft proposal, saying: "It is understood that Members' food security shall not be jeopardized as a result of these purchases."

At a meeting of 15 trade envoys convened on 11 December by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, sharp differences came to the fore between Singapore, which is a leading proponent of the GC decision, and India and Pakistan over apparent attempts to rush to a decision on export prohibitions while ignoring the permanent solution on public stockholding programs for food security and other major issues of the Doha work program, said a person familiar with the meeting.

At the Heads of Delegation (HoD) meeting, India apparently explained it's long-standing cooperation with the WFP's humanitarian efforts and reiterated its difficulty in accepting a blanket exemption of WFP purchases from export restrictions at this juncture, the person suggested.

Stating that due to its own food security considerations, India suggested that food security cannot be addressed through the prism of international trade alone, and that not only the causes but the symptoms of hunger should also be addressed, said a farm negotiator from South America, who preferred not to be quoted.

India has all along maintained that the source of the hunger problem is related to the access to food that requires structural reforms and that an extension of the Bali decision on new Public Stockholding programs should be a deliverable in this context, the negotiator said.

Singapore apparently objected to India's arguments at that meeting, suggesting that India is adopting an obstructive stance, the negotiator said, adding that India criticized Singapore for its remarks at the HoD meeting.

In an apparent act of adopting double-standards, the developed country proponents of the GC decision on export restrictions continue to vehemently oppose a temporary waiver from the obligations of the WTO's TRIPS Agreement on copyrights, patents, industrial designs, and undisclosed information for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.