|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov23/19) Geneva, 29 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — The informal mini-ministerial meeting of 25 countries on 27 November apparently failed to provide any political “guidance” to “inject momentum” in agriculture ahead of the World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13), after key participants seemingly echoed their oft- repeated positions that showed little or no convergence, said people familiar with the discussions. MC13, to be held in Abu Dhabi in February 2024, appears set to continue with the drought in accomplishing any outcome just like the WTO’s 10th ministerial conference (MC10) in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, MC11 (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, and MC12 in Geneva last June, said people familiar with the discussions. The informal mini-ministerial meeting was convened virtually for more than three hours to “explore a reset in our approach that delivers strong support for negotiations in Geneva,” according to the letter written by Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, the UAE (United Arab Emirates) minister of state for foreign affairs and the chair of MC13, as well as the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, on 13 November. In their joint letter, both acknowledged that, “Over the past two decades, the agriculture negotiations have failed to yield progress” as sought by members. They emphasized “the importance of agriculture and functioning markets.” Both called for exploring “a reset in our approach that delivers strong support for the negotiations in Geneva. This responsibility is only amplified by the impact of the climate crisis and conflict on food security.” However, the mini-ministerial meeting attended by the United States, the European Union, China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Samoa on behalf of the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group, Cameroon on behalf of the Africa Group, Nigeria, Australia, the coordinator of the Cairns Group of farm- exporting countries, and several others, made limited or no progress in inching towards any “reset”, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. If anything, the divergent positions reiterated by the participants seem to have made the task of the United States, the European Union, and the G10 farm-defensive countries easier, as they watched the face-off in conceptual terms of the MC13 narrative between the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries on the one side, who are seeking a comprehensive blueprint of reform of agriculture based upon Article 20 of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), and a large majority of developing countries seeking outcomes on the mandated issues, on the other, said people familiar with the discussions. The Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries led by Australia, with the United States allegedly behind the scenes, are seeking a modest commitment on Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which is a “red line” for a large majority of developing countries, said people familiar with the discussions. DELIVER ON PSH & SSM The large majority of developing countries represented by India, Indonesia, South Africa, the Africa Group, the ACP group, and Nigeria among others, in varying levels of emphasis, demanded outcomes on the mandated issues of public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security and the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for developing countries, said people familiar with the discussions. India, which was the first to speak at the meeting, apparently drove home a strong message as to why it is important to deliver on the mandated issues of PSH and SSM on its own merits at MC13, failing which there will be serious consequences and loss of credibility for the WTO, said people, who asked not to be quoted. It appears that India also sent a strong message on changing the external reference price (ERP) based on 1986-88 prices to current levels so as to get a clear picture of the calculation of aggregate measurement of support in the domestic support. Indonesia apparently raised the same issues explaining the underlying rationale of correcting asymmetries in the global agriculture trade, said people familiar with the discussions. On behalf of the G33 group of developing countries, Indonesia apparently said members must focus first on the outstanding mandates from previous Ministerial Conferences. Once the mandated issues are resolved, then WTO members can gradually build from there to generate a stronger momentum for a broader agriculture trade negotiation agenda, the G33 coordinator said. Indonesia said that there have been instances in the past where negotiations on stand-alone issues yielded positive results, such as the TRIPS waiver, the Trade Facilitation Agreement, and the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. There is no reason, Indonesia apparently said, why WTO members cannot do this with the agriculture issue, provided members can agree on the common ground. The G33 apparently made it clear that it would be difficult to approach the negotiations in a holistic manner at this stage, without first rectifying the imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture, which has disadvantaged developing country members and LDCs for far too long. Therefore, it is a sine qua non to find a permanent solution on PSH, Indonesia said, adding that such a permanent solution should not only address the trade aspect of food security, but also its development aspect, which includes supporting low-income and resource-poor producers, and meeting food security requirements of our peoples. The G33 also called for revising the fixed External Reference Price in the Agreement on Agriculture, as it does not reflect actual trade distortions relative to current world market conditions. In varying levels of emphasis, Samoa on behalf of the ACP group, and Cameroon on behalf of the Africa Group, seemed to have emphasized the importance of PSH, said people, who asked not to be quoted. South Africa apparently said the continued food security crisis, along with the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the worsening climate change seems to have challenged the notion that trade liberalization equals food security, said people familiar with the discussions. South Africa appears to have said that trade liberalization should not be presented as a panacea for food security. As part of the Africa Group, South Africa said it has been consistently clear that countries’ ability to confront the food security challenges in their respective economies has been severely hampered by the lack of substantive reforms in the global agricultural trade, suggesting that the current architecture and rules allow for a select few developed countries to have access to policy space to provide obscenely high subsidies to their farmers, said people familiar with the discussions. South Africa said food security requires other effective tools that include public stockholding programs and support for farmers. It called for a livelihoods package that disciplines domestic support, especially amongst historical and large subsidizers, an outcome on PSH in accordance with the agreed Nairobi ministerial mandate, the SSM, and a resolution on cotton. US FOR COMPREHENSIVE REFORM US Trade Representative (USTR), Ambassador Katherine Tai, seems to have echoed the need for a “reset”, as argued by Abu Dhabi’s MC13 chair and the DG in their joint letter to the participants. The USTR apparently suggested that members have to go back to the primary principles as set out in Article 20 of the AoA. The USTR said that PSH is at the core of domestic support, suggesting that market price support is trade- distorting, according to people familiar with the discussions. She apparently said that all negotiating topics must be on the table for finding a constructive path forward, said people familiar with the discussions. Apparently, she emphasized that there has to be something for everyone, suggesting that it means that domestic support including public stockholding, market access, SSM, export competition, and export restrictions must all be on the table, said people familiar with the discussions. Despite not delivering an outcome on cotton since the WTO’s fifth ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003, the USTR at least mentioned cotton in her intervention, said a person familiar with the discussions. Ambassador Tai apparently rhetorically said that across these topics, each member has varying circumstances, positions, and roles to play. Without entering into hard negotiations, she seems to have set the parameters that each member will give more in certain areas and receive more in others. The USTR apparently said that all 164 members of the WTO will need to find a balance. Elaborating further, she is understood to have said that a member with high-bound tariffs and low levels of domestic support entitlements is in a different position than a member with low-bound tariffs and higher levels of domestic support entitlements. In short, the USTR said the ministerial decisions regarding public stockholding and SSM can be incorporated and addressed in the broader Article 20 negotiations as long as the overall result is in the direction of reform, said people familiar with the discussions. Ironically, the above statement by the USTR suggests that there is little or no sanctity to the ministerial mandates which, in the past, were treated as sacrosanct, said people who asked not to be quoted. The US, the USTR is understood to have said, remains willing to contribute to market access, domestic support, and all aspects of the agriculture negotiations. She seems to have expressed hope that at MC13 members can come together with this type of acknowledgment that can set the negotiations on the right track, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The EU said that it can consider the ERP when we consider domestic support as part of a holistic approach. The EU’s stance seemed partly in support of the ERP, said people who asked not to be quoted. CHINA LAMENTS INEQUITIES China apparently lamented that the inequities and imbalances in international rules on trade in agricultural goods have not been changed, said people familiar with the discussions. China apparently said that, fundamentally, developing members are facing a more challenging food security situation due to the impact of COVID-19 and climate change. Beijing seems to have emphasized that the agriculture negotiations should first correct the rules deficit and formulate fair and reasonable rules that are more in line with the interests of developing members to help them improve their production capacity and agricultural sustainability to contribute to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It apparently drove home the message that a successful MC13 is particularly important for maintaining the credibility of the multilateral trading system, adding that it will help restore the confidence of all parties and help members to better deal with current and future challenges. China seems to have said that it objects to the so-called holistic approach which attempts to solve all issues using one modality or the issues being strictly negotiated in parallel so as to achieve a truly holistic outcome, said people familiar with the discussions. The Chinese minister is understood to have said that as members are approaching MC13, there are still tremendous divergences and the chance of achieving substantial results in agriculture at MC13 is small, said people familiar with the discussions. At the outset, Brazil apparently said that the success of MC13 as a whole hinges on a successful outcome in agriculture, emphasizing that it continues to be vested in the WTO reform process. Brazil seems to have argued that it continues to contribute to strengthening the WTO, warning that another postponement of this organization’s greatest unfulfilled promise is not acceptable, said people familiar with the discussions. Brazil, which spearheaded the G20 coalition of developing countries in the past to fight in a united manner in the Doha Round, lamented that agriculture reform has been delayed for almost three decades, which compounded the damage to food security and sustainable development in different parts of the world. It apparently reiterated that today’s concern with food security should be a strong catalyst for meaningful agricultural reform. It made it known to the PSH proponents that there is no food security in the absence of robust agricultural trade. It opposed cherry-picking results or any low-hanging fruit, as many members have stressed at the Senior Officials Meeting and as many colleagues have already stressed in this meeting. Therefore, Brazil is understood to have emphasized that a holistic approach is the only way forward for which a realistic and solid outcome is imperative. Brazil argued that such an outcome would put members on the reform path mandated by Article 20 of the AoA and ensure all key issues move on an equal footing. Brazil apparently said that by MC13 members need to establish parameters and give clear political instructions for all the elements of a package in agriculture. Brazil said it should be the goal of the members to conclude the modalities in agriculture at MC14 in 2026. Brazil reminded participants that there will be no quick fix, suggesting that for the first time in years, members seem to have, at MC13, a concrete opportunity to achieve meaningful progress in agricultural reform that effectively contributes to food security and sustainable development worldwide. In conclusion, the positions held by ministers at the virtual mini-ministerial meeting clearly suggest that the divergences are rooted in positions held by countries on several issues in agriculture. It looks unlikely that there will be any outcome on agriculture at MC13, said people familiar with the discussions. +
|
||
