|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct23/10) Yerevan, 9 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The United States, the European Union, and some South American countries such as Paraguay apparently blocked attempts by the Chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations to kick-start discussions on the much-delayed permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security in developing countries at the World Trade Organization last week, said people familiar with the discussions. Despite a sustained demand from a large majority of developing countries for an outcome on the permanent solution on PSH at the upcoming WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13), to be held in Abu Dhabi in February next year, the US, the EU, and some South American countries almost ensured that there will not be any outcome on this crucial issue at MC13, said people who took part in the meeting. During the Doha negotiating session on agriculture held at the WTO last week (2-3 October), the chair, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, called on members to focus on one element, i.e., anti-circumvention, and as contained in the proposal submitted by a large majority of developing countries that include the Group of 33 (G33) coalition of developing countries led by Indonesia, the African Group, and the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) group. Following his sustained consultations with members during the month of September, the chair, in his report on the state-of-play (JOB/AG/249), suggested that: “For a large group of developing country Members, the PSH issue should be addressed on a priority basis given the missed deadlines and in the current global context of food security challenges faced by many countries! The other priority issues for them are Domestic Support, SSM [Special Safeguard Mechanism] and Cotton.” In his report, Ambassador Acarsoy said that he will continue to initiate “element-by-element discussions for each topic based on Members’ submissions. *As regards PSH, we have on the table two specific proposals on PSH initially circulated before MC12, plus one recent proposal on Domestic Support also addressing PSH. We will continue the element-by-element discussions we started yesterday. * With respect to Domestic Support, we also have two proposals on the table. I just reported on the meeting I facilitated between the African Group, Costa Rica and a few other Members. * We have one proposal on SSM, but the linkage with market access continues to remain a key challenge in these discussions. * On the other topics, I hope we can get new proposals and inputs from proponents on market access, export restrictions, and possibly export competition. * Cotton will of course also need to be addressed.” His report also contains the views of several other members that these issues can’t be pursued at this juncture. “We should also remind ourselves that MC13 will not be the end of the road,” the chair said, emphasizing that, “Our objective is to initiate a process that would reinvigorate the negotiations and achieve tangible progress, while delivering at the same time on food security.” In the face of the continued stumbling blocks allegedly created by the US along with some South American countries, the chair apparently chose to go ahead with the discussions on the issue of anti-circumvention/ safeguards as proposed by the G33, the African Group, and the ACP group in the document Job/Ag/229. The proposal was submitted by the three groups at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12), held in Geneva last June, which proposed the following language: ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION/SAFEGUARDS “5.1. Stocks acquired under public stockholding programs for food security purposes covered under paragraph 2 of this Decision shall not substantially distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. 5.2. Upon reference to the Understanding of rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes (DSU), subparagraph 5.1 shall be applied only in accordance in full conformity with the meanings provided under relevant provisions of Part III, Part VIII, and Article 31 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 6. A developing country Member shall endeavor not to export from acquired stocks, except for the purposes of international food aid, or for non-commercial humanitarian purposes, or when requested by Net Food Importing Developing Countries and least developed countries in the same geographic region or in any other region, or any member facing food shortages and higher food inflation during an international food crisis.” Given the opposition to the attempts being made to negotiate on the PSH issue, it is clear that MC13 in Abu Dhabi is unlikely to have any outcome on this issue, said people who took part in the discussions. The continued opposition to the mandated issues that remained unaddressed for more than eight years is a cause for worry and the delay has eroded the credibility of the WTO, said people who asked not to be quoted. The WTO only delivers on the issues raised by the industrialized countries, said an African negotiator, suggesting that it allegedly works on the principle of “cherry-picking” by the US, the EU, and other developed countries. CHAIR’S CONCLUDING REMARKS Despite the apparent setback that he suffered due to the obstacles created by the US, the EU, and several South American countries, the chair said that he will hold another meeting on 19-20 October so that members can finalize the list of issues to be taken up at the proposed Senior Officials Meeting starting at the WTO on 23 October. The chair reiterated his objective that members “make concrete progress, step-by-step, on the topics under negotiation, building on Members’ submissions to date, and advancing on an element-by-element basis. This objective could also evolve depending on the guidance we receive from Senior Officials.” He said that though a lot of work has been done since the beginning of the year, there is much more that needs to be done. “There is an urgent need for our negotiations to begin delivering real outcomes”, he said, suggesting that it is somewhat troubling that nothing is being done on the mandated issues since the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11), held in Buenos Aires in December 2017. DOES THE WTO WORK FOR BIG AGRI-TRADERS? In its Trade and Development Report (TDR) 2023, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had pressed for tougher rules to govern the big Agri-Corporations that produce food products, emphasizing that these corporations make phenomenal profits while consumers are facing a cost-of-living crisis. It pointed out starkly that while the Agri-Corporations and commodity traders made tens of billions of dollars in profits, poor people faced hunger and inequality across countries, a problem that is not squarely addressed by the WTO, as it allegedly works for the interests of the big agri-traders, said an analyst, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
