|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May23/05) Geneva, 15 May (D. Ravi Kanth) — Despite a lack of concrete progress on any of the mandated deliverables for the upcoming World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13), the WTO director-general, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, seems to be contemplating the idea of convening a capital-based senior officials’ (SO) meeting end-July, said people familiar with the discussions. In a fax sent to trade envoys on 11 May, the DG said members “will recall that, at the General Council on 8 May, I picked up on Members’ suggestion to hold a Senior Officials’ meeting at some point during our preparatory process for MC13 with a view to providing practical and political impetus to our work in Geneva towards a successful Ministerial Conference.” “In this regard,” Ms Okonjo-Iweala suggested having “a two-day Senior Officials’ meeting at the end of July in lieu of the July TNC (Trade Negotiations Committee meeting).” The DG said that she “would consult delegations on this idea,” adding that “with this in mind, I met with Members in different configurations broadly representative of the Membership to hear views.” “I would therefore like to invite you to a short, one-hour meeting at the HODs (heads of delegation) level to report back on what I heard and for us to agree on the date of the Senior Officials’ meeting which will facilitate Members’ preparations in Geneva and in capitals,” she said. Interestingly, in her statement at the GC meeting on 8 May, it appears somewhat clear that the DG seems to have made up her mind about the Senior Officials’ meeting in end-July. In her report issued at the GC meeting, Ms Okonjo-Iweala observed that “to facilitate our work and make it more official, I would like to mention something.” The DG said, “I have been looking at some of the suggestions that Members have made during our retreats and at the General Council regarding the way that the TNC operates”. She suggested two important options. “First, I am trying to have TNCs only when it would make a difference. To that effect, I have decided not to have a TNC in June, as was programmed, to allow Chairs and Members more time to work,” she said. “Second, to give our work a political and practical boost, one of the suggestions many of you made was to think of Senior Officials’ meeting. In this regard, picking up on your suggestion, I would like to suggest that the July TNC meeting, just before the General Council meeting, be used for a two-day Senior Officials’ meeting,” Ms Okonjo-Iweala informed members. The DG went on to say, “I would like to know your views on this. I would like to consult with all of you to see how to prepare this so it would be focused and productive. I have some ideas, but it would be good to hear from you. I am just merely making a suggestion and looking for your feedback.” TOO EARLY TO HOST SENIOR OFFICIALS’ MEETING However, it is not clear as to who or which members suggested the need for a senior officials’ meeting and what such an event, if held, will achieve, as the whole roster of deliverables for MC13 seems to be stuck, said one member, who asked not to be identified. Also, it is too early to call for a Senior Officials’ meeting at a time when members are unable to move in areas like fisheries subsidies, agriculture, dispute settlement reform, on extending the MC12 Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, the moratorium on levying customs duties on electronic transmissions, issues concerning improvements sought by the Group of 90 developing countries on special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions, and on WTO reforms, said another member, who asked not to be quoted. According to people familiar with the ongoing discussions, there is a strong push-back against the following mandated issues: 1. The permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security and the special safeguard mechanism in agriculture; 2. Lack of consensus on definitions and approaches concerning subsidies that contribute to OC&OF (overcapacity and overfishing); 3. Alleged attempts by the United States to attenuate the two-tier dispute settlement system, while a large number of countries want full restoration of the two-tier system with the Appellate Body as the final adjudicator; 4. Continued opposition to paragraph eight of the MC12 Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement to cover COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, as well as opposition from Japan and other industrialized countries for terminating the e-commerce moratorium; 5. Attempts to weaken the WTO’s negotiating function to ensure that issues are decided “discreetly” without much transparency and undermine the actual negotiations on each issue as part of WTO reforms; 6. Most importantly, the continued push-back against improvements sought on the S&DT provisions to make them simple and effective. Therefore, it appears inconceivable that a Senior Officials’ meeting could add any value at this juncture, said several members, suggesting that it may be wise to host such a meeting after the summer break in early September. US PROPOSAL Meanwhile, the United States has tabled a proposal that seeks “to modernize and update the General Council and Heads of Delegation/Trade Negotiations Committee agendas”, but Washington’s latest proposal could curtail the time and space for members to discuss each proposal. In a three-page proposal (WT/GC/W/872) issued on 26 April, the US said, “our interest is in making preparations for the meetings more predictable and manageable for delegations and organizing our discussions and decision making to improve efficiency.” The US proposal comes close on the heels of several other WTO reform proposals submitted recently, and discussed at the GC meeting on 8 May, on: how to conduct ministerial meetings by Australia; how to improve and bring about transparency and efficiency in the functioning of the WTO through India’s “30-For-30” proposal on incremental changes; and how to enhance dialogue with other international organizations by Colombia along with several other countries. Due to time limits on making statements imposed by the new GC chair, members seemed to be unable to comprehensively discuss these proposals. The US, due to some inexplicable reason, did not table its proposal for discussion at the GC meeting, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Washington’s proposal contains the following: “1. Some minor modifications to the agendas of our General Council and HOD/TNC meetings may facilitate more productive engagement from Members; 2. Improve our ability to discuss relevant issues in an orderly and direct manner; 3. Ensure that all Members are prepared in advance for any specific decisions or deliberations they may need to take part in; and 4. Improve efficiency and time management of our meetings.” The US said that its proposal is “straightforward and simple”, arguing that it recommends “instituting the practice of including an annotated agenda and organizing agenda items based on newness and the action required by or expected of Members.” According to the US proposal, “for meetings held under the Informal Heads of Delegation or Trade Negotiations Committee, specific and separate agenda items could help facilitate more direct engagement among Members and between Members and the Director-General.” It said: “These (above) meetings have recently taken on a secondary purpose, serving as the Director-General’s opportunity to engage with Members on issues outside of the negotiating agenda, such as suggestions for Secretariat reform, pension or budget-related updates, or the transformation exercise.” Washington argues that “the agenda does not provide predictability or advance warning that would allow for a specific back and forth on these discrete issues.” The US insists that “administrative and organizational issues such as these form an integral part of WTO reform discussions and deserve greater attention and a designated place on the agenda for more productive exchanges.” It wants the “Director-General to create a separate agenda item for these updates, with separate and discrete sub-items indicating in advance the specific topics she intends to raise.” With advance notice, and a clear portion of the meeting set aside for discrete discussions, the US said that it believes “we could improve dialogue and exchange with the Director-General on important and relevant issues relating to issues outside of the negotiating agenda.” The US maintained that “for meetings of the General Council (which is the highest decision-making body in the interval between the biennial ministerial meetings), we suggest including as part of each agenda item an indication of what action is required by Members, such as adoption, discussion or information.” Surprisingly, to know what action is needed, members ought to discuss the issues threadbare, said a member, who asked not to be quoted. Under the sub-heading of “General Council agenda”, the US proposed “a reorganization of the agenda items to group similar themes or action items together with the objective to use the format of the agenda itself to help clarify expectations and to allow for easier preparation in capitals.” It suggested prioritizing “new items and those requiring decisions or actions so that they occur early in the meeting when Members have the most time available to engage and interact with each other.” “On the other hand, items that are recurring, where there have been no updates or revisions, or are previously agreed upon by a subsidiary body or other Chair reports would appear later in the agenda. In that way, Members would be rewarded for making revisions to existing proposals based on their outreach and feedback, and would be incentivized to submit items directly rather than relying on standing items with no proponents,” said the US. The US said “in the event that time constraints require abbreviated interventions, the priority items would not be sacrificed, and written statements could be submitted in lieu of oral interventions if necessary.” It proposed that the General Council chair reorder the agenda in the following manner: “Section 1: New proposals, communications, or submissions by Members or new revisions of communications previously discussed, prioritizing those requiring action or decision by the Council; Section 2: Additional items where GC action or decision is needed, including Waivers, CBFA [Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration] recommendations; Section 3: Chair reports, communications, or submissions that are not specific proposals for action/decision but are submitted for discussion purposes only; Members’ proposals for action/decision that have been on the agenda previously but have not been updated or revised; Section 4: Standing items (those with no proponents to lead or direct discussions) – TNC reports, Ministerial follow-up reports.” The US noted that “Chapter II, Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure for the General Council (WT/L/161) provides the basis for creating an agenda but does not specify or limit the discretion of the General Council Chair in determining the order of items proposed for any particular meeting. Therefore, we believe the proposal above is consistent with the current Rules of Procedure.” The US said, “if Members desire certainty, the General Council could decide to modify Chapter II, Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure as follows: “The General Council decides to modify Rule 3 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Council (WT/L/161) as follows: Rule 3 A list of the items proposed for the agenda of the meeting shall be communicated to Members together with the convening notice for the meeting. It shall be open to any Member to suggest items for inclusion in the proposed agenda up to, and not including, the day on which the notice of the meeting is to be issued. [Items proposed for inclusion shall appear on the agenda consistent with Annex 4.] [Annex 4 The General Council Chair may reorder the agenda in the following manner: Section 1: New proposals, communications or submissions by Members or new revisions of communications previously discussed, prioritizing those requiring action or decision by the Council; Section 2: Additional items where GC action or decision is needed, including Waivers, CBFA recommendations; Section 3: Chair reports, communications or submissions that are not specific proposals for action/decision but are submitted for discussion purposes only; Members’ proposals for action/decision that have been on the agenda previously but have not been updated or revised; Section 4: Standing items (those with no proponents to lead or direct discussions) – TNC reports, Ministerial follow-up reports.]” It welcomed “the institution of a clock during General Council meetings,” which was allegedly unhelpful for many developing and least-developed countries in expressing their views, said people familiar with the US proposal. The US wants the General Council Chair to do more in regard to members’ interventions, stating that “at other international organizations, the microphone is simply turned off when the intervention exceeds the allotted time.” “At a minimum here, the General Council Chair should tell a speaker when their time is expired,” the US said, suggesting that “the speaker could be provided a brief time to wrap up (for example, an additional 30 seconds).” “Once that additional time expires, the General Council Chair should announce the next speaker in line,” the US suggested. It argued that “rather than restricting discussion between Members, we believe this step would encourage Members to utilize other venues such as subsidiary bodies or informal open-ended meetings of the General Council to work toward consensus rather than relying on the formal General Council meetings for preliminary or technical deliberations.” Further, according to the US, “Members who associate with a statement delivered on behalf of a group should limit their remarks to specific comments not already covered in the group statement.” In short, the US proposal, according to people who spoke to the SUNS, is apparently intended to curtail the time and space for developing and least developed countries to discuss/negotiate proposals in a meaningful way, as the WTO is a negotiating body where things can be transparently discussed instead of “cooking up decisions “discreetly” in an opaque manner”. +
|
||
