|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb24/30) Abu Dhabi, 28 Feb (D. Ravi Kanth) — The facilitator tasked with overseeing progress on the draft text on agriculture posed three questions to trade ministers at the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi to address the balance across topics and time-lines on domestic support and market access, possible exemption of imports from export restrictions, and two options on public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, said delegates familiar with the text. The minister-facilitator for agriculture at MC13, Ms Rebecca Miano, Kenya’s Cabinet Secretary for Ministry of Investments, Trade, and Industry, held bilateral meetings with several key members and coordinators of various groups for the past two days. Following the bilateral meetings, the facilitator posed three questions to trade ministers to address at the convergence session on 27 February. The questions posed to trade ministers, seen by the SUNS, include: 1. Balance across topics (domestic support and market access) in terms of specificity of issues to be addressed, time-lines, and expected outcomes at MC14; 2. Deliverables for most vulnerable Members, in respect of the possible exemption of their imports from export restrictions and the possible extension of the interim Bali decision on PSH to them (the NFIDCs or net food- importing developing countries like Egypt and the least-developed countries); and 3. The option on Public Stockholding for food security purposes in the chair’s text. The facilitator urged members to “share their ideas on how we could build convergence around the Chair’s text.” Before the convergence meeting on 27 February, the facilitator appears to have held a meeting with members where differences came into the open all over again. The European Union is understood to have said that the draft texts on domestic support and market access are balanced, suggesting that it may not be proper to disrupt them, said delegates who were present at the meeting. The EU and even the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries seem determined to link the PSH issue, which is a standalone issue, with domestic support, said delegates present at the meeting. Privately, a delegate from Brussels told reporters that India may take a strong stand on the PSH issue because of its ensuing elections. The farm-defensive countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Japan seem concerned about the level of specificity in domestic support because it could undermine their blue box payments, said people, who asked not to be quoted. It appears that Switzerland, which is part of the farm-defensive countries, apparently said that mandates must be respected, in what appears to be a response to the Cairns Group’s stand that the current mandates are static and countries need dynamic mandates, said another delegate who asked not to be quoted. Thailand, one of the key members of the Cairns Group, seemingly engaged in “unwarranted provocative comments” by saying that one country which has a share of 10% in global rice exports is seeking a permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, said a delegate who asked not to be quoted. Positions on agriculture among key members appear to be entrenched with the United States and some South American countries like Paraguay seeking a high level of ambition in domestic support and market access. The US wants parity between the level of ambition in domestic support and market access. In sharp contrast, the EU and other farm-defensive countries like Switzerland and Japan seem to oppose any high level of ambition in both domestic support and market access, said delegates familiar with the discussions. In an attempt to cover up their differences, the US and EU seem to be exerting pressure on the facilitator in the ongoing discussions in Abu Dhabi to have a one-page document for pushing all the issues to the next ministerial meeting, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. The Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries as well as the Latin American Group led by Brazil and Ecuador, who are seemingly disappointed with the draft text on domestic support, appear to be fighting a rearguard battle with the EU and the farm-defensive countries, said a South American delegate, who asked not to be quoted. India is understood to have said that the “development box” (Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture) and the de minimis payments cannot be subjected to any changes, said an African delegate who asked not to be quoted. At the meeting, India and Indonesia, the coordinator of the Group of 33 developing countries, demanded the adoption of the chair’s first option on the permanent solution for PSH, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. CAIRNS GROUP STAND In their ministerial statement issued on 25 February, the Cairns Group lamented about the continued failures “to reach any substantive reform outcome in agriculture since the decision at the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2015 to eliminate agricultural export subsidies.” The group cautioned that “maintenance of the status quo or a reversal of commitments achieved since the Uruguay Round would be unacceptable and inconsistent with the Article 20 mandate.” Emphasizing that MC13 must deliver “a concrete and equitable outcome in agriculture,” the Cairns Group called for agreeing “to modalities by MC14 on a holistic agricultural trade reform package consistent with Article 20 and that addresses all Ministerial mandates.” Further, according to the Cairns Group, “a holistic approach to agricultural trade reform will need to include market access. Trade in agricultural products continues to be particularly affected by tariffs and other barriers. We call on Members to step up efforts to achieve substantial improvements in market access for agricultural products, to create more equitable conditions for international trade across the board.” In his draft text issued on 16 February, the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, proposed language on domestic support and market access. Ambassador Acarsoy proposed the following paragraphs on domestic support: “1. Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on domestic support, including by discussing and analysing all forms of trade-distorting support, with a view to reducing substantially and progressively the most distorting forms of such support in a fair and equitable manner and improving disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. [Modalities shall be agreed and a decision adopted by MC14.]/[Members agree to work toward agreeing modalities at MC14.] 2. Members’ contributions to the reduction effort should take into account, inter alia, their global market participation, the needs of developing Members, and the interests of exporters and concerns of importers; and encourage a shift towards less trade-distorting forms of domestic support. Product specific concentration of support should also be considered. Modalities should reflect different treatment depending on the effects of the support provided. 3. These negotiations shall preserve the special and differential treatment of developing country Members and LDCs, including support to low-income or resource-poor farmers, as well as to encourage diversification from growing illicit crops. 4. Members are advised to provide the value of production data, including for specific products, in their DS:1 notifications to substantiate de minimis claims.” MARKET ACCESS The US, which refused to provide market access for the Cotton-4 countries (Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Chad) on their most sought items during the “streamlining” discussions on 16 February, demanded market access from the LDCs for the same items, said a person who asked not to be quoted. Also, the US had pressed for parity between market access and domestic support in terms of the level of ambition. But the draft text on market access merely says: “5. Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on agricultural market access with a view to reducing substantially and progressively protection in a fair and equitable manner to improve market access opportunities for all Members and improving disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA and within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. [Modalities shall be agreed and a decision adopted by MC14.]/[Members agree to work towards achieving modalities by MC14.] 6. These negotiations may address tariff reduction and other elements, such as tariff simplification, tariff escalation, high tariffs and tariff peaks, tariff rate quotas, and special agricultural safeguards, taking into account exporting Members’ interests and importing Members’ sensitivities, including non-trade concerns. Technical discussions on relevant market access elements shall support these negotiations to facilitate a common understanding on the elements to be addressed and to facilitate Members’ effective participation in the negotiations.” It appears that the EU and the G10 farm-defensive countries protested over the issue of specificity in market access. Accordingly, the chair’s draft text has proposed that Members “may” address tariff reduction and other elements, said a trade negotiator, who asked not to be quoted. The language on export restrictions and prohibitions is also substantially weakened because of opposition from Russia, Argentina, and India among others. PSH On PSH, the chair stuck to his original draft, though, he moved the annex proposed by India to a place holder. At the “streamlining” discussions on 16 February, the US pressed for deleting the first option of concluding the permanent solution on PSH at Abu Dhabi. The either/or options on PSH are as follows: “28. [Pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members adopt a permanent solution as set out in Annex [ ] to this Decision.] OR 28. [Pursuant to Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members undertake to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in Dedicated Sessions of the CoA-SS and agree and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes by MC14, which shall be available to all developing country Members. Public stockholding programmes shall not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. 29. The negotiations for a permanent solution shall pay particular attention to the food security challenges of LDCs and NFIDCs, and consider all relevant issues, including domestic food security targets of the programmes; product coverage; safeguards and anti-circumvention, including with respect to exports; transparency; and legal certainty. They shall also consider the impact of inflation on calculations of the Aggregate Measurement of Support.] 30. [Taking into account the acute food security challenges and vulnerabilities of developing country Members, in particular LDCs [and NFIDCs], Members agree to extend, until [MC14], the Bali Interim Solution established by the Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913) and the General Council Decision of 27 November 2014 (WT/L/939) to public stockholding programmes for food security purposes of LDCs [and NFIDCs that are net importers of the product concerned] enacted after 7 December 2013. The General Council shall regularly review progress in these negotiations.]” +
|
||
