|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov21/27) Doha agriculture
chair exposes her "biases" against developing countries Geneva, 24 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) - With less than six days to go before the WTO's 12th ministerial conference (MC12), the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, seems to have single-handedly undermined prospects for any credible outcomes in the agriculture dossier, due to her allegedly "biased" position on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in the developing countries, said people familiar with the development. Never in the history of the Doha agriculture negotiations has a chair chosen to openly show her "biases" against the developing countries in such a stark manner, said several people, who preferred not to be quoted. Beginning from Ambassador Stuart Harbinson from Hong Kong, China who was the first chair of the Doha agriculture negotiating body between 2001 and 2003, followed by Ambassador Tim Groser from New Zealand (2003-2005), Ambassador Crawford Falconer from New Zealand (2005-2009), and Ambassador Vangelis Vitalis also from New Zealand (2013-2016) among others, sincere attempts were always made to produce balanced texts, without overly tilting the balance in favour of either the aggressive seekers of agricultural market access or the farm-defensive members, said people, who asked not to be quoted. REVISED CHAIR'S REPORT In her 16-page revised report (which includes the chair's draft text on agriculture in an annex) issued to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 23 November, the chair urged the trade ministers to "consider revisiting" the mandated permanent solution on public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security at MC12, but to defer the outcome on PSH to the 13th ministerial conference (MC13). Effectively, the chair appears to have permanently undermined the permanent solution on PSH programs for food security for developing countries, despite demands for an outcome at MC12 by the G33 group of developing countries as well as the African Group, said people who asked not to be quoted. The chair's report covers seven main areas. They include: (1) agriculture domestic support; (2) market access; (3) export competition; (4) export restrictions; (5) cotton; (6) the special safeguard mechanism; and (7) public stockholding programs for food security, as well as the cross-cutting issue of transparency. Yet, a cursory look at the draft text suggests that the chair has put issues of interest to the Cairns Group of farm- exporting countries, of which Costa Rica is an active member, such as domestic support, market access, and transparency provisions on a higher pedestal, as compared to PSH, the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries, and the long-pending issue of cotton, said people familiar with the draft text. The chair said the text "does not fully reflect their (members') initial ambitions." Ambassador Peralta claimed that it is her "best attempt to put on the table a balanced and realistic package that could garner the support of all members for an outcome which all may be able to accept." The Costa Rican chair argued that she firmly believes that "this text would represent a significant step forward." The chair chose not to mention the Doha agriculture negotiations under which she is currently chairing the agriculture negotiating body. She mentioned Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which was the basis for the Doha agriculture negotiations. The chair sought to deflect attention from the Doha Round, which is by far the most important round of trade negotiations, including on agriculture, which was allegedly sabotaged by the United States. The chair mentioned the UN Sustainable Development Goal No. 2 "on hunger, food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture." Shifting the goal posts to suit the interests of the dominant players like the United States, the European Union, and the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries led by Australia, has now become the order of the day. The chair has also ensured that the asymmetrical rules of the Uruguay Round Agreement that have been in place for more than 26 years in the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture, will now remain unchanged for another 20 years, while attempts are made to bring new rules and reforms in all other areas, said people, who asked not to be quoted. PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING In the six paragraphs that are devoted to the mandated permanent solution on public stockholding programs for food security, which gave an account of developments in the negotiations during the past several months, the chair's central message is contained in paragraph 8.6 of the report. She said that her assessment "that it would be extremely difficult to achieve a permanent solution at MC12 was not shared by some developing country Members, who insisted that I forward this issue to Ministers for their consideration and decision." Without naming these countries, the chair said that "several Members strongly objected to this proposed course of action, notably due to the lack of detailed technical work on elements for a permanent solution and the absence of parallel progress on domestic support." "Consequently, given the stalemate, my recommendation to Ministers is for the adoption of a work programme with a view to agreeing on a permanent solution by MC13," she said. The chair went a step further to offer her advice to the ministers: "Given the importance attached to the PSH issue by several developing country Members, Ministers may, if they so wish, consider revisiting it, bearing in mind the significant divergent positions as outlined above, among the Membership". After failing to deliver on the permanent solution on PSH at the WTO's 10th ministerial conference (MC10) in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, and at the WTO's eleventh ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, the chair has recommended that ministers adopt "a work programme with a view to agreeing on a permanent solution by MC13." CONTRADICTION IN CHAIR'S POSITION ON PSH Surprisingly, the chair appears to have contradicted her own recommendation made in the first draft text that she issued on 29 July. In that draft, she said that "taking into account the proposals by Members and the views expressed during my consultations with a wide range of Members, as well as documents and analysis put forward in recent years, my first option proposed below draws inspiration from the draft text circulated at MC11 and recent submissions made by Members," while "the second option is a way forward with an intermediary step to be taken at the MC12." In short, the chair seems to have erased the hopes of a large majority of developing countries who have sought an outcome on the permanent solution on PSH at MC12, several trade envoys said. Asked what is the message that the WTO intends to send on the PSH issue, which is one of the major "deliverables" for the developing countries at MC12, the WTO spokesperson Keith Rockwell admitted that it is a "blemish", given the manner in which it has been deferred from MC11 to MC12 and now (possibly) to MC13. Perhaps, the chair has put the entire agriculture agenda at risk due to the allegedly "biased" positions against PSH, said people, who took part in the consultations. The chair's draft ministerial decision on PSH states: "We undertake to intensify our negotiations and make all concerted efforts to agree and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes by MC13, taking into account existing and future submissions by Members. The negotiations shall continue to be held in dedicated sessions of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session." DOMESTIC SUPPORT On the issue of domestic support, the chair said "the domestic support pillar has been at the heart of the agriculture negotiations since their commencement in 2000." That her apparent ignorance of the Doha trade negotiations, which began in the second half of 2002, has become evident when she referred to their commencement in 2000, when there were no negotiations, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. As regards the hundreds of billions of dollars in "green box" support programs, which were found to be trade- distorting according to several studies, the chair said that "there was also disagreement over how to address Green Box support (which does not fall under Article 6). Several Members insisted on the need for Green Box criteria to be clarified, along with those in Articles 6.2 and 6.5 of the AoA." She said "taking into account the limited time left until MC12, and the persistent differences over how to discipline TDDS (trade-distorting domestic support), it is clear that Members will be unable to achieve a substantive outcome at the (12th Ministerial) Conference involving agreement on concrete modalities for the reduction of TDDS entitlements." She suggested that "Members establish modalities by MC13 to substantially reduce trade-distorting domestic support by the date to be agreed upon by Members, coupled with some guiding principles and improved transparency requirements." Ambassador Peralta claimed that her draft ministerial decision "strikes a careful balance between the competing negotiating priorities and sensitivities of different Members and reflects the wide divergence among Members' positions." The draft ministerial decision on domestic support states: "1. We agree to continue negotiations on domestic support after MC12 with a view to negotiating modalities by MC13 to reduce substantially trade-distorting domestic support [entitlements] [by 20XX] [within a timeframe to be determined by Members] in furtherance of the reform programme under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The negotiations shall be based on submissions by Members and shall take into account and build on the progress made thus far in these negotiations. 2. We agree that special and differential treatment of developing countries, particularly the needs of low income or resource poor farmers, as well as the non-trade concerns of Members shall be taken into account in these negotiations. 3. We agree that contributions by Members to the objective of achieving a substantial reduction of global trade- distorting domestic support shall be fair and underpinned by the principle that Members who distort trade the most shall contribute more in the reform process. The individual circumstances and development needs of Members shall be taken into account. 4. We note the importance of the implementation of existing notification obligations under Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture and undertake to make the necessary efforts to provide outstanding domestic support notifications prioritizing as from the year 2010 to enhance transparency with respect to existing domestic support commitments. To this end, we agree to explore ways in the Committee on Agriculture to streamline and update the notification requirements related to domestic support, taking due account of the capacity constraints that some developing country Members including especially least developed among them are facing. Members undertake to provide the value of production data as part of their DS:1 notifications and to provide the required information in a complete and comprehensive manner. 5. We instruct the WTO Secretariat to maintain and update on a regular basis a domestic support analytical tool based on Members' notifications or publicly available official information where necessary. Members' past contributions can be used as examples for this tool with modifications to be made as necessary to ensure neutrality. 6. Acknowledging the importance of the Green Box in the reform process in assisting Members to address contemporary challenges, we agree to clarify the criteria and transparency-related requirements of Annex 2. Members shall also clarify the criteria in Articles 6.2 and 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture." MARKET ACCESS With the Cairns Group and the US being the main proponents of agricultural market access, while the European Union and the Group of 10 (G10) farm-defensive industrialized countries have opposed any concrete outcome at MC12, the chair proposed that "members' work in this area (market access) continues in the Committee on Market Access, anchored by their sharing of current national practices when changing applied tariffs, and with a view to developing a non-exhaustive list of good practices for national customs authorities." However, her proposed draft ministerial decision takes on board all the demands raised by the Cairns Group and the United States. The draft ministerial decision states: "1. We agree to continue negotiations, as mandated by Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, on all elements of agricultural market access after MC12 with a view to improving substantially and progressively market access opportunities for Members. Technical discussions on relevant elements in the Market Access pillar shall be undertaken to inform these negotiations. The negotiations shall take into account special and differential treatment for least developed and developing country Members, non-trade concerns of Members, and progress on other outstanding agricultural issues. 2. We agree to make all efforts to comply with current notification obligations under the Market Access pillar with assistance from the WTO Secretariat, as necessary. We also commit to enhance transparency and streamline existing market access notification requirements and formats through a detailed work programme to be elaborated by the Committee on Agriculture. 3. We agree that enhanced transparency in the application of changes to MFN ordinary applied tariff rates would provide greater certainty and predictability to businesses and traders, especially those who have shipments en route to destinations which may effect changes in their tariffs. We also recognize that some Members currently have provisions in place that provide greater certainty through various mechanisms. Accordingly, Members agree to provide details on their current practices on effecting changes in MFN applied tariffs to the Committee on Market Access with a view to establishing a non-exhaustive list of good practices for customs authorities to take into account when effecting changes to a Member's applied ordinary tariff rates." The chair's draft text also includes draft ministerial decisions on export prohibitions or restrictions; cotton; special safeguard mechanism; and enhanced transparency provisions. There is also a draft ministerial decision on World Food Programme (WFP) food purchases for humanitarian purposes. Interestingly, there was no agreement on this issue at the Buenos Aires ministerial conference in December 2017, but the chair has allegedly shown her "bias" again on this issue, saying that "members shall not impose export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuffs purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Programme." In conclusion, if the developing countries fail to reject the chair's allegedly "biased" text now, they could suffer from inequitable and asymmetrical trade rules in the biggest sector of global employment, namely agriculture, for decades to come, said an analyst, who asked not to be quoted.
|
||
