|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct23/15) Yerevan, 13 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s Director-General Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the chair of the General Council, Ambassador Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme of Botswana, on late evening of 11 October circulated a revised agenda of issues to be discussed at the upcoming Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) on 23-24 October, said people familiar with the development. Apparently, at the informal heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 10 October, Brazil, the African Group, India, and several other countries pushed back against the undue importance being given to the non-mandated issues, particularly on scheduling discussions on trade and industrial policy and trade and environmental sustainability, by the DG in her earlier report sent to members on 3 October (see SUNS #9868 dated 5 October 2023). Several developing countries expressed concern that the DG was allegedly giving importance to these non-mandated issues while downplaying the importance of addressing the central issues like the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, which was not even mentioned in the DG’s earlier report, as well as in the latest letter sent jointly by the DG and the General Council (GC) chair, said people familiar with the discussions. At one point during the HoD discussions on 10 October, the DG seemed rather upset with the Indian trade envoy’s sharp concerns that the second day of the SOM is focusing on the European Union’s issues, which the envoy said will not serve any purpose, said people familiar with the discussions. The Indian trade envoy, Ambassador Brajendra Navnit, apparently argued that there was little traction on discussing trade and industrial policy at this juncture. He seemed to have suggested that trade and environmental sustainability ought to be discussed in the Committee on Trade and Environment, as mandated by trade ministers at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) last June. In paragraph 14 of the MC12 Outcome Document, trade ministers unambiguously said: “We note the role of the Committee on Trade and Environment as a standing forum dedicated to dialogue among Members on the relationship between trade measures and environmental measures.” In her alleged angry response, the DG is understood to have said: “Oh, I echo the European Union’s point of view that these issues are very important for the future and why they should be there.” The DG’s response seemed to go against the cardinal principle enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement that the WTO is a member-driven and rules-based intergovernmental organization and not a DG-driven body, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be identified. Even though the DG is the chair of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), she is only tasked to focus on the mandated issues and not on issues where there is no prior mandate from the ministers, said the envoy. The HoD meeting began with the new Brazilian trade envoy Ambassador Gilherme Patriota pointing out that while Brazil concurs with the DG’s report on focusing on agriculture and development, we should have a plenary session to address other issues like the MC12 Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement and even investment facilitation, said people present at the meeting. Brazil is understood to have underscored the need to address other relevant issues such as subsidies, technology transfer, and policy space. It highlighted the importance of discussions on unilateral measures based on environmental claims, as they could distort markets and undermine confidence in multilateral trade and climate regimes. Brazil apparently proposed merging discussions on trade and industrial policy, and trade and environmental sustainability into a single debate to save time in discussing the way forward. “Packing the discussions on reform of the Dispute Settlement Body and the second wave of the Fish discussions may not be ideal,” said another trade envoy, suggesting that it is not going to happen. “DSB reform is actually important for the system, and it is bundled with discussion on Fish – because everyone knows that the United States cannot make any progress,” the trade envoy said. PUSH-BACK BY AFRICAN GROUP In a strong push-back against the DG’s report, the African Group set the following benchmarks for the SOM. First, it reiterated that the SOM should principally be a platform for high-level policy or political direction as opposed to detailed technical discussions. Second, whilst it agreed that the discussions at the SOM must indeed be focused, “we must nevertheless avoid the framing of deliberations and questions in an overly prescriptive manner nor prejudge outcomes.” Third, “the topics must be balanced and reflect the varying interests of all Members without a sense of some issues enjoying priority over others nor any categorizations that presume what is achievable or not and in what form by MC13.” Fourth, “the topics for consideration in the formal program must be limited to multilaterally mandated issues, particularly issues flowing from longstanding negotiating mandates, including MC12.” Fifth, “the African Group reiterates the importance of preserving the Member-driven character of the WTO, including in agenda setting; inclusivity and transparency, and consensus decision-making.” Further, the African Group shared the following observations and recommendations for refining the topics in the draft program and structure of the Senior Officials Meeting: A. The African Group said it “supports the broad focus on “Agriculture and Food Security”. However, we would like to underscore that a comprehensive approach that focuses on the core issues impacting food security must be followed.” B. Senior Officials will have to confront the longstanding mandated issues of domestic support reform, a permanent solution to Public Stockholding (PSH), an outcome on a Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries, the issue of Cotton, and the MC12 mandate pursuant to paragraph 8 of the WTO Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity. C. The African Group said: “Development is a cross-cutting issue that permeates all areas of WTO agreements, negotiations and other functions. It cannot be confined to issues of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) and LDC Graduation. The African Group, therefore, proposes that the topic be amended to “Trade and Development”, instead of the overly prescriptive and narrow approach proposed.” D. The African Group said that it expects Senior Officials to consider a possible MC13 “Development Package” that would include, in addition to SDT and LDC graduated members among others, the following key priorities of our members: the TRIPS Decision extension; the development dimension of the Work Program on Electronic Commerce (WPEC); the issue of accessions; and policy space for industrial development. E. It reiterated that the issue of policy space for industrialization is a development priority for the African Group on which “we have tabled a number of concrete proposals. We do not characterize nor approach this as an issue for mere deliberation.” F. Regarding “Fish 2”, the African Group said it would propose that this be reserved for an update report for noting in the “Plenary Session on Other Areas in view of MC13” on Day 1. G. It called for avoiding “technical discussions at the SOM level as this may hamstring post-SOM negotiations.” H. Regarding the Plenary Session on Other Areas in view of MC13, as outlined in the principles it outlined earlier, the African Group suggested that “the topics herein either be confined to issues flowing from outstanding multilateral negotiating mandates, including from MC12 or other topics as agreed by consensus.” I. It called for avoiding “parachuting to the SOM, issues outside of consensus, that have not been formally tabled by a member nor sufficiently processed by relevant WTO bodies, particularly the GC.” J. It argued that “besides the prerogative of any Member to raise an issue they feel strongly about during this plenary session, the African Group believes the space provided for bilateral discussions in the draft program provides an even better avenue to build consensus and understanding between Members, especially on contentious issues. Madame DG, and GC Chair, the African Group assure you of our support towards a successful outcome.” South Africa apparently highlighted the importance of addressing the mandated issues, especially in the area of industrial development. It underscored the need for senior officials to commit to a decision on TRIPS Decision extension by December. In varying levels of emphasis, several other countries also apparently raised concerns at the meeting held on 10 October. Malaysia, for example, is understood to have said that political guidance is needed for addressing the issues in agriculture and food security, as divisions continue to exist among members. It also called for guidance on development issues, such as the graduation of LDCs. As regards the reform of the dispute settlement system, Malaysia suggested that senior officials provide political support to continue technical negotiations. Regarding trade and environmental sustainability, Malaysia said it considers these issues important but is not sure of the expected results. It suggested a shorter decision and allocating more time to other pressing issues such as TRIPS. Panama noted that the issues of subsidies and the dispute settlement system are of particular importance. Apparently, Nigeria expressed support for the DG, while calling for more focus on development and graduation of LDCs. It highlighted the need to address market-distorting measures, national policies, and reduce trade-related challenges for developing countries. It emphasized the relevance of the dispute settlement mechanism, especially in the context of the MC12 mandate. Ecuador recalled that 15 Latin American countries supported the declaration on agricultural reform at MC12. It emphasized the importance of addressing agriculture comprehensively and noted that agricultural problems are interconnected. In short, members seem to be sharply concerned over the manner in which the DG is allegedly pushing her controversial agenda that aims to serve the interests of the European Union and the United States, said several people who spoke to the SUNS.+
|
||
