|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct20/22) Washington DC, 20 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) – The chair of the Doha Rules negotiating group at the WTO has accelerated meetings on fisheries subsidies from 20 October, in what appears to be a somewhat “reckless” move in holding these meetings despite the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, negotiators told the SUNS. Last week, the Canton of Geneva imposed several restrictions, including limiting private gatherings to below 100 people. Several governments in Europe are also on the brink of imposing complete to semi-lockdown conditions in various parts due to the resurgence of the novel coronavirus cases that have so far crossed more than 40 million while deaths have increased to more than 1.1 million people around the world. Also, the heads of the major multilateral bodies in Geneva, including the International Labour Organization, are apparently considering closing their organizations, and leaving a bare skeletal staff to function, said a person familiar with the development. However, the WTO appears to be in no mood to stop the convening of the negotiating group meetings that are tasked to negotiate on disciplines on fisheries subsidies, which have a major impact on developing countries, said a negotiator, who asked not to be quoted. Despite the complete absence of capital-based officials and experts in Geneva and with limited technical resources available at most of the developing and least-developed country missions, the chair is pressing ahead with negotiations in which only the major subsidizers such as China, the European Union, the United States, Japan, Korea, and Chinese Taipei among others have requisite negotiating resources, the negotiator said. At a town-hall meeting on 15 October, a senior WTO official informed the staff that the WTO Secretariat has sought authorization from the Geneva Canton to continue with meetings, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. Against this backdrop, the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia, has scheduled meetings from 20 October to negotiate on issues concerning “artisanal fishing,” “payments under government-to-government access agreements,” and “due process in IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) (fishing) determinations.” In his email sent to members on 16 October, the chair said that in his last report “to the NGR (Doha Negotiating Group on Rules) at the HoDs (heads of delegation) level at the end of the last cluster, that I would send you some questions on two of the items to be addressed: on artisanal fishing; and on Article 3.3 on due process in IUU determinations.” He also included the topic of government-to-government access agreements, saying that “having reviewed earlier discussions on government-to-government access agreements, I think it may be useful also to pose some questions on payments under government-to-government access agreements.” Ambassador Wills said the questions he raised “are based on points raised in previous meetings and the objective of posing them is not meant to limit your interventions but to try to focus and structure our discussions.” He said that “the details of the meetings, all of which will be informal open-ended meetings of the NGR, along with the questions, where relevant,” are set out below: “* Tuesday afternoon 20 October starting at 3:00 PM in Room W to discuss Article 3.4 and footnote 7 to that Article in the draft consolidated document (RD/TN/RL/126). At the start of the meeting I will provide also an opportunity for the delegation of Brazil to introduce its revised proposal in document RD/TN/RL/124/Rev.1; * Wednesday morning 21 October starting at 10:00 AM in Room W to discuss how artisanal fishing and government-to-government access agreements might be addressed in the draft document.” The questions posed by the chair on “artisanal fishing” include: 1. What form should an exemption for artisanal fishing take given the difficulties the NGR and other organizations have had with some definitions like artisanal, small scale, or large-scale fishing; and 2. Where in the draft consolidated document should a possible exemption be placed: under scope; in general provisions; or under specific pillars? As regards “Government-to-Government fisheries access agreements”, the chair asked members to address two questions. They include: (a) What elements, if any, of payments under government-to-government access agreements should be exempted?; (b) Where in the draft consolidated document should a possible exemption be placed: under scope, in general provisions, or under specific pillars; and what, if any, notification requirements would be needed? On Friday morning 23 October starting at 10:00 AM, the chair said that he would like to continue the discussion on Article 3.3 on due process in IUU determinations. Ambassador Wills posed the following questions on IUU determinations and due process: * The first defining a final determination; * The second on due process by the entities making that final determination (without prejudice to whether there should be any due process rules, what are the determining entities and which ones would be subject to rules on due process); and * The third (which could be part of the second) on notifications of IUU determinations (again without prejudice to whether or not there should be such an obligation). At an informal heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 11 October, South Africa’s trade envoy Ambassador Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter had raised concerns about negotiating issues without proper sequencing. Ambassador Xolelwa said that “sequencing of discussions is critical to resolve some of the cross-cutting issues; looking at text in isolation, while it may create a focused discussion, [it] may not be beneficial if the broader scope and context of discussions are ignored.” Commenting on the unaddressed issues in Article 3 of the draft consolidated text concerning prohibitions on IUU fishing, Ambassador Xolelwa said that “issues of dispute resolution also seem to occupy much of the discussions on determinations, such as in the area of IUU determinations as well as on the issue of territoriality and maritime jurisdiction.” “It would be important to also start looking at the brackets in Article 10 on dispute resolution in the draft consolidated text,” she said at the meeting. She expressed grave concern at the meeting “regarding the lack of discussion on S&DT (special and differential treatment) – our previous observations remain relevant here.” So far, there has been modest progress on the major areas of the scope and definition of “fish”, overcapacity and overfishing, special and differential treatment, and other institutional areas of the proposed fisheries subsidies agreement.
|
||
