TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov21/06)
8 November 2021
Third World Network

“Rigged” consultations process for agriculture “deliverables” at MC12?
Published in SUNS #9454 dated 8 November 2021

Geneva, 5 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) – The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations appears to have adopted a “rigged” consultations process, with only eight countries set to decide what ought to be the outcomes on agriculture at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) set to begin in Geneva on 30 November, said people familiar with the development.

Effectively, the chair’s controversial process has excluded 130 members from knowing what is being discussed by these eight members.

The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, has been negotiating for the past ten days with a group of eight countries that include the United States, the European Union, China, India, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, and Canada, on the proposed “deliverables” for MC12.

The likely “deliverables” include an interim decision on the public stockholding programs for food security, a work program on domestic support and several other issues including market access, a decision to enable the World Food Programme (WFP) to procure food products without any export restrictions being placed on them and so on, said people familiar with the development.

“I am very concerned about the process as we are all excluded and we are not being provided any information on the flow of discussions among the eight participants,” said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

The process is akin to what is invariably done at the WTO’s ministerial meetings when a large number of members are excluded from the process. The frustration of the large majority of the members who are currently being excluded from the chair’s process is understandable, said another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

Some members who had raised sharp concerns during the regular open-ended Doha agriculture negotiating body meetings have also been excluded, the envoy said.

The other big problem in the small-group consultations is the chair’s inability to communicate in English and her dependence on the slips provided by the Secretariat, said another person.

In short, the chair-led process appears to be “rigged” on two counts.

On the first count, the eight-member “green room” constellation appears to be tilted in favour of the industrialized countries including the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, and Brazil, which counts itself as an industrialized country after giving up its entitlement to special and differential treatment in 2018.

There are only three developing country members – India, South Africa, and China – in the chair-led consultations.

On the second count, around 130 countries are being excluded from the chair-led process if one considers the European Union as comprising 27 separate countries.

Effectively, the chair-led process seems to lack credibility and integrity, said people familiar with the discussions.

Also, the WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okojo-Iweala, who is busy campaigning for carbon tariffs at COP26 in Glasgow, seems to be less focussed on agriculture than on fisheries subsidies and the WTO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Perhaps, these closed-door meetings are an indication of what is going to happen at MC12 if it is convened amid a rising wave of COVID-19 cases in Switzerland as well as Europe.

THE EIGHT-MEMBER DISCUSSIONS

The chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations on 28 and 29 October, as well as early this week, held consultations with the eight members and presented her assessment on several issues in the agriculture dossier.

Apparently, there was little convergence on any of the issues, particularly on the permanent solution on public stockholding programs for food security (PSH) and on domestic support.

At a meeting of select countries including the United States, the European Union, China, India, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, and Canada on 27 October, the chair outlined her views on several issues including PSH, domestic support, market access, the proposed decision concerning the WFP, and the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries, said people familiar with the discussions.

On PSH, which is being demanded by a large majority of developing countries, the chair’s formulation of an interim decision to cover new programs for least-developed countries and some developing countries for a period of 5 years has been questioned by India and other developing countries.

The chair also said that, due to the divergences among the countries, the PSH issue could be continued through a post-MC12 work program, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

India said an outcome on PSH is a central priority for developing countries, suggesting that the perpetual “peace clause” on the issue was already agreed by members, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

In her assessment on domestic support, the chair suggested a substantial reduction in domestic support, including cuts in the most trade-distorting aggregate measurement of support (AMS) and the de minimis.

She also proposed a work program, including the need to revisit Article 6.2 of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).

Article 6.2 allows for the provision of investment and input subsidies by the developing countries that are exempted from domestic support reduction commitments.

The US and the EU apparently underscored the need to keep the proposed language on domestic support to a minimum without much elaboration, as it could lead to confusion, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

However, Australia and Brazil called for high ambition in the domestic support work program, with Brazil calling for specificity.

South Africa apparently opposed any change to Article 6.2 of the AoA dealing with the “development box” of subsidies for developing countries that are exempt from any reduction commitments, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

India, China, and South Africa, who defended the developing countries’ concerns, seemed to be outnumbered by four industrialized countries (the US, the EU, Canada, and Australia) and their new ally Brazil, which was the architect of the G20 coalition of developing countries on agriculture in 2003.

On 28 October, during the eight-member meeting, India apparently criticized the opponents of the proposed decision on the permanent solution on public stockholding programs for food security at MC12, warning that if a decision on fisheries subsidies can be negotiated in the next five weeks, the same can be done for PSH.

At a “Room D” meeting on 4 November, the opponents of the permanent solution on public stockholding programs for food security including the United States, the European Union, and several other members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries repeatedly maintained that it would be difficult to negotiate a decision in the next five weeks, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

They insisted that the issue of PSH can be addressed as part of a work program after MC12, effectively denying a decision that has been pending since the WTO’s tenth ministerial conference (MC10) in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, and then extended to the WTO’s eleventh ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017.

Earlier, the chair suggested that the PSH issue be taken up as part of a work program post-MC12.

She also suggested an interim decision to cover new programs for LDCs and some developing countries for a period of 5 years, said people familiar with the discussions.

In a sharp response to the opponents’ demand, India criticized these countries and the chair’s earlier suggestion by saying that those who argue that it would be difficult to negotiate the PSH decision in the next five weeks seem to forget their own argument on fisheries subsidies wherein they maintain that a fisheries subsidies agreement must be negotiated in the next five weeks, said people familiar with the development.

India apparently exposed the double-standards adopted by the opponents of an agreement on PSH, pointing out that there seems to be one set of standards on reaching an agreement on fisheries subsidies and another set of standards for an issue raised by a large majority of developing countries, said people, who preferred not to be quoted.

India informed the chair that it supported the revised draft ministerial decision circulated last month by the Group of 33 (G33) countries, which is coordinated by Indonesia.

That draft decision, to be agreed at MC12, calls for “Members [to] agree to put in place a permanent solution …, for the use of public stockholding for food security purposes by developing country Members and LDCs.”

The US maintained that the PSH issue is not the only component of food security, suggesting that there are other issues that are on the table, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Brazil said some countries are assuming the unnecessary burden of other developing countries instead of looking into their own concerns, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Brazil said that there is no need to assume solidarity for other countries, said people familiar with the discussions.

India said that it is ready to take on the burden of other countries, adding that it need not be lectured on what to do, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

The European Union, which is another strong opponent of PSH and invariably links it with the issue of domestic support, said the small-group meetings seem to be polarizing positions among members.

India dismissed the linkage between the PSH issue, on the one side, and the domestic support issue, on the other, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Fissures on other issues in the agriculture dossier came into the open during the meeting. The chair is expected to issue a revised text soon, said people, who asked not to be identified.

In conclusion, even if the chair’s alleged “rigged” consultations process results in any outcomes, they severely lack credibility, as around 130 countries had little to do with such seemingly “botched” results.

Furthermore, when the WTO preaches about transparency, it seems somewhat shameful that it continues to adopt an opaque process for arriving at these results.