TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr22/05)
8 April 2022
Third World Network

WTO: Chair of Doha agriculture talks "misleading" members, says Indonesia
Published in SUNS #9551 dated 7 April 2022

Geneva, 6 Apr (D. Ravi Kanth) - Indonesia, which coordinates the G-33 coalition of developing countries in the Doha agriculture negotiations at the World Trade Organization, has apparently inveighed against the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiating body for allegedly "misleading" members on the mandated permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, said people familiar with the development.

The chair of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (COASS) at the WTO, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta from Costa Rica, apparently tried to find a "scapegoat" on the PSH issue by suggesting that she is waiting for Indonesia to inform about its discussions with the non-proponents on this issue.

The COASS is also referred to as the Doha agriculture negotiating body, as it was established under the Doha ministerial mandate.

In her report to the Doha agriculture negotiating body on 21 March (Job/AG/226), the chair said "specifically with regard to PSH (public stockholding), a request was made to allow some time for the proponents to work on a joint proposal and consult with non-proponents."

She said, "I hope that these discussions would produce results which could feed into our process."

The chair went on to say that "I am looking forward to hearing about the work that is going on and the progress that is being made."

INDONESIA "DEBUNKS" THE CHAIR

In a strong letter addressed to Ambassador Peralta on 30 March, seen by the SUNS, Indonesia expressed serious concern over the chair's statement for allegedly "misleading" the members on the PSH issue, said people familiar with the development.

Indonesia apparently told the chair that the bilateral negotiations being held by the G-33 group on the PSH issue are independent from the proceedings conducted under the auspices of the Doha agriculture negotiating body.

The G-33 coordinator told the chair that the process separate from the COASS or the intention to develop a joint proposal along with its time-lines, have never been requested nor asked by the COASS.

With growing distrust in the chair's revised draft text on the issue of PSH among the developing countries, the chair is allegedly engaging in "questionable" practices by trying to find a "scapegoat" for "the mess" that she has created on this mandated issue, said an African trade official, who asked not to be quoted.

In its letter to the chair, Indonesia also argued that the G-33's outreach efforts on the mandated permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security are aimed at building mutual trust and confidence among members, as well as to discuss the key issues with the non-proponents such as the members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, said people familiar with the development.

On behalf of the G-33, Indonesia had informed members at various meetings about these outreach efforts.

India also apparently said at one of the meetings that they are engaged in the outreach efforts on grounds that the chair's draft text cannot be a basis for further negotiations unless it is substantially changed, said people familiar with the development.

Consequently, Indonesia asked the chair to "amend" paragraph seven in her statement (cited above), a demand that appears to have reinforced the distrust in the chair's work, the African official said.

CHAIR'S CONTROVERSIAL ROLE

The chair's proposals as contained in document TN/AG/50 issued on 23 November 2021 and her recent statements on the PSH issue seem to be influenced by the Cairns Group led by Australia, the United States and the European Union, said several people, who preferred not to be quoted.

That these members allegedly come to the chair's rescue as and when she comes under criticism from a large majority of developing countries for "the mess" that she has created in the negotiations is well known, said people familiar with the development.

The chair, who is from Costa Rica, a member of the Cairns Group, has allegedly reversed the mandate on the PSH issue, according to people familiar with the development.

In the revised draft agriculture text (TN/AG/50) that was issued just days before the postponed WTO's 12th ministerial conference (MC12) due to the sudden eruption of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the chair 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 (as demanded by the African Group and the G-33 coalition)."

Without mentioning members such as the US, Brazil, Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group, and the EU, 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."

She said that "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 (the WTO's 13th ministerial conference which could be held sometime in 2024)."

Ambassador Peralta went on to say that "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."

In short, according to several countries, the chair allegedly "spiked" the permanent solution for PSH programs as per the wishes of the US, the Cairns Group members, and the EU among others, said people familiar with the development.

Subsequently, members from the African Group categorically said that they have "no trust" in the negotiations conducted by the chair, while India said that it will not accept the chair's draft text as a basis for any further negotiations due to a lack of balance, said people familiar with the development.

SHIFTING GOALPOSTS ON "FOOD SECURITY"

In an alleged attempt to kill off the permanent solution for PSH programs, the US, Brazil, and Australia among others have now apparently shifted the goalposts by raising the issue of "food security" and not public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries.

In her report to the Doha agriculture negotiating body on 21 March, the chair apparently gave some credence to this new turn of events on the mandated permanent solution for PSH programs, by saying that "some Members highlighted that the CoA Special Session was the most appropriate forum to address globally the issue of food security in the context of the WTO negotiations."

Ambassador Peralta said "several Members emphasized the need to develop a broader perspective on how the WTO agriculture negotiations in general and an MC12 outcome in particular could effectively contribute to food security and poverty alleviation, including in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as food market developments following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine."

"The views expressed on food security were diverse and it was suggested that a side event should be organized in the near future to inform this debate" (on 24 April), the chair said.

Discussions on the mandated permanent solution for PSH programs were allegedly "stonewalled" by the members of the Cairns Group, particularly Brazil, and also the United States, said people familiar with the development.

Earlier on 17 March, the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries had circulated a 20-page paper (Job/Ag/210/ Rev. 1), arguing that: (1) there are several questions regarding the expenditures incurred for market price support that undergirded the PSH programs; (2) the difficulties to "corroborate that procurement was made at a market price and not via a form of price support or administered prices"; and (3) more than 100 questions were raised at the WTO's Committee on Agriculture but failed to secure clear answers, and so on.

According to the farm-exporting countries, "the amount of detail, variety of sources, and the approach taken in order to write this paper attests to the inconsistencies and information gaps on the way Members notify expenditures for PSH."

These countries maintained that "discussions may be warranted to clarify whether a developing country Member that does not report its PSH as a measure under Annex 2 (concerning domestic support: the basis for exemption from the reduction commitments), paragraph 3 (public stockholding programs for food security), could benefit from the current Bali decision or a permanent solution on PSH."

Brazil and several other farm-exporting countries such as Paraguay, Canada, and even the United Kingdom, maintained that they will not accept anything that will restrain their right to challenge these programs.

"The right to challenge is very critical and they cannot accept a permanent solution," Brazil apparently said at a meeting of the Doha agriculture negotiating body.

In conclusion, the letter from Indonesia appears to have exposed the chair's allegedly "misleading" statement made on 21 March, vindicating the prevailing perception that under the leadership of the Costa Rican ambassador, the permanent solution for PSH programs may prove difficult to achieve.