|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Sept20/18) Washington DC, 21 Sep (D. Ravi Kanth) – Many developing countries have called for addressing the scope and sequencing issues, including the special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions, in the draft fisheries subsidies text that was issued by the chair of the Doha rules negotiations, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia. The developing countries pushed back against suggestions for overseeing fisheries management at the World Trade Organization, and negotiating transparency and notification provisions before addressing the fault lines in the draft text, trade envoys told the SUNS. At the heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 18 September, sharp differences came into the open on various provisions of the draft consolidated text due to the chair’s selective prioritization of issues such as overcapacity and overfishing and transparency and notification provisions. In his comments, the chair Ambassador Wills expressed his unhappiness at the way members approached the negotiations. The chair emphasized the need for good faith implementation of the outcomes, suggesting that “some delegations are approaching the negotiations on how to defend themselves in litigation and how to challenge some other’s commitments even before allowing them to comply.” Ambassador Wills said that he is alarmed that members stuck to their original positions and “on how to exempt themselves from a particular discipline and at the same time to include others in the application of that discipline.” “This won’t work,” Ambassador Wills said, arguing that “instead of challenging current measures, we need to ensure that members will comply with what is being negotiated, as we are dealing with the underlining problem of sustainability.” “Litigation should be (the) last resort, and not a mind-set to negotiate; if this is not addressed we will have a substantial problem very soon,” said Ambassador Wills, expressing sharp concern over the failure to make progress during the meetings last week. Responding to the chair’s apparent exasperation, the US trade envoy to the WTO Ambassador Dennis Shea supported the draft consolidated text and the overall conduct of the negotiations last week. Ambassador Shea said the US is not convinced that the continued discussions on Article 5.1 on the prohibitions of subsidies contributing to overfishing and overcapacity is a promising area to make much progress. “Briefly put, several members from different continents have put a proposal for capping,” the US envoy said, arguing that “time and again we have seen proposals for prohibiting other member’s subsidies and exempting their own through innumerable exemptions and exclusion.” According to the US trade envoy, “together we put out a proposal on transparency and notifications,” suggesting that “despite the mandate’s ban on some harmful subsidies, some delegations have categorical objections to any environmental and other criteria.” He said the US is concerned by “objections to strong transparency provisions in distant water fishing.” In the face of growing pressure for a credible process and “sequencing” of issues, the US envoy said the key is to avoid any stalled discussion on process and sequencing issues – for the good of fish and for the good of the organization. The US strongly supported the chair in the conduct of the negotiations. On capping subsidies as proposed by the US, the European Union said that certain harmful subsidies need to be eliminated, and capping of subsidies is outside the mandate. The EU said several members remain opposed to fisheries management, but the management of fisheries played an important role in constraining fisheries subsidies. The CARICOM (Caribbean Community) countries and Vanuatu said their populations depend on fishing for their food security, suggesting that there must be balanced disciplines. Indonesia’s trade envoy Ambassador Syamsul Bahri Siregar called for making the draft consolidated text more simple and clearer, arguing that there are “significant gaps.” He called for re-formulating the draft text on overcapacity and overfishing, emphasizing that special and differential treatment is very important for Indonesia and other developing countries. Indonesia called for (negotiations in) an “inclusive, transparent, and objective manner” in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.6. According to the UN SDG 14.6, leaders had agreed to “prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) fishing, and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation(s)” India appeared to rule out any agreement on fisheries subsidies this year, while emphasizing that S&DT must remain at the center of all the provisions. Without naming the countries that have depleted the global fish stocks through their industrial-scale fishing, India said that those who are not part of the problem should not bear the responsibility. India suggested the “polluter pays” principle, saying that those who created the problem should bear the responsibility. India also spoke about moving the deadline for the negotiations to next year. Several developing country coalitions such as the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific ) group, the African Group, the least-developed countries and South Africa among others raised sharp concerns about the draft text, cautioning that it needs to be amended to include their proposals. In its intervention, South Africa’s trade envoy Ambassador Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter said while it is the chair’s prerogative “to identify issues that are critical to be discussed in each Cluster, it is important to understand the linkages between various provisions of the Agreement and the difficulty of selective prioritization of certain issues without a broader understanding of how they interact.” “It seems clear to us that there is a need to reflect on the sequencing of the negotiations,” said Ambassador Xolelwa, adding that “a discussion on the scope is of paramount importance if we are to make any progress in these negotiations. This will result in clarity on the type of disciplines relating to fisheries subsidies. In addition, we cannot start with negotiation of transparency obligations when we have not finalized the core disciplines themselves.” While transparency and notification issues are important to members, they “cannot prejudge outcomes of core disciplines at this time,” South Africa said. Ambassador Xolelwa argued that “transparency and notification obligations should not be more burdensome than necessary, and must take into account the peculiar practicalities of the fisheries sector and the capacities of especially developing countries.” Ambassador Xolelwa said members “must deliver on the mandate” based on UN SDG 14.6 and not UN SDG 14.4 which emphasizes on regulating harvesting, ending overfishing, and implementing science-based management plans. Ambassador Xolelwa said that “the WTO does not have expertise nor the mandate to deal with fisheries management.” Moreover, the “parameters of the negotiations have been clearly defined and agreed by our leaders,” South Africa said. “Any expansion of the mandate is not going to assist our cause,” she emphasized, arguing that special and differential treatment “has to be an integral part of the agreement as per the mandate.” “We reject any notion that limits S&DT to transition periods and capacity building,” Ambassador Xolelwa said firmly, arguing that “S&DT is a fundamental pillar and principle that underpins all WTO negotiations and it must at its core include flexibilities for developing countries.” She drew attention to “the Marrakesh Agreement” that “states clearly that we conduct our trade relations in a manner consistent with our respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development.” Members “also need to bear in mind that in negotiations on sustainability there is an important principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), a principle of international environmental law establishing that all states are responsible for addressing global ills, yet not equally responsible,” South Africa emphasized. Further, “those who are the major subsidizers and are responsible for the state of fisheries must shoulder the greatest responsibility,” South Africa argued. Responding to the chair’s call for negotiating in good faith, Ambassador Xolelwa said “it is important to ensure that the Agreement is fair and does not limit our ability to develop our fisheries resources for the benefit of our people.” Against the backdrop of the Covid 19 pandemic, South Africa reiterated “that the pace of the negotiations must take into account the COVID-19 challenges and importantly allow for political oversight in these negotiations and for time for us to consult our capitals.” “These negotiations are extremely important to us as we have an offensive interest,” South Africa said, arguing that members “must work towards a balance that leads to effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies, that respect the mandate under SDG 14.6 and the mandate of the WTO.” On behalf of the African Group, Botswana called on members “to demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism in the approach of a prohibition of the most harmful subsidies in line with the spirit and letter of the mandate and the ambit of the WTO competences.” Members “should be focusing on subsidies and not fisheries management,” Botswana argued. “On the process,” the African Group said “the questions about how the text will be amended or changed have been a subject of discussions (and) it is important to clarify the rules of engagement so that members can prepare themselves appropriately.” On behalf of the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific) group, Jamaica said the group “does not support linkages to tests or expose fish management decisions to scrutiny in the WTO.” Jamaica said “the WTO is not a fish management organization and that what you have will not invoke panel scrutiny.” “We also heard that indeed there would be scrutiny and “yes” some sort of test is needed,” Jamaica said, arguing that “the tests appear to provide an opportunity to exempt the major subsidisers that can find creative ways around the tests.”
|
||
