|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May24/14) The “hidden” goal of the retreat appears to be to change the principle of consensus-based decision-making as enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO in 1995, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. Ahead of the GC chair’s proposed retreat on 8-9 July, another retreat will be convened on 2-3 July to discuss the way forward in agriculture, said people familiar with the development. Although the exact venues for these two retreats are yet to be finalized, it appears that they might take place at the WTO’s headquarters, said a person who asked not to be quoted. During the WTO’s General Council meeting on 22 May, the chair of the General Council, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, said that the proposed retreat on 8-9 July would reflect on how work is carried out in Geneva, how Ministerial Conferences can be optimized, and how the ongoing work can be carried forward in the various workstreams. The GC chair is understood to have said at the meeting that the underlying goal of the proposed retreat is to “ensure the WTO remains a forward-looking Organization – mindful of the pending, long overdue workstreams that require our attention and breakthrough of longstanding stalemates”. He told members that he would elicit their views on the actual content of the retreat in the next couple of weeks. Earlier, Singapore, one of the key members of the “Friends of the System” group, proposed a retreat to discuss how to make ministerial conferences more optimal, efficient, and result-oriented following the failure of the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi, said people familiar with the development. As reported in the SUNS, several members, including the United States, supported Singapore’s proposal. Singapore’s controversial proposal on “responsible consensus”, which is being co-sponsored by several countries, including Norway, is expected to come up for discussion at the General Council meeting on 23 May, said people familiar with the development. “JULY PACKAGE” At the General Council meeting on 22 May, the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, appears to have indicated some elements of a package of deliverables at the July meeting before the summer break, despite substantial differences on issues like fisheries subsidies, said people after the General Council meeting. In her statement as the chair of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), the DG said four priorities for action repeatedly came up in her recent consultations with members – fisheries subsidies, agriculture, dispute settlement reform, and investment facilitation for development, according to the statement posted on the WTO website. On fisheries subsidies, Ms Okonjo-Iweala noted that members were “very close” to completing the “second wave” of negotiations on fisheries subsidies at MC13 and that “there is much regret that it did not happen”. “Given this, members said we must get this done as soon as possible. So, this is a top priority, and we are going to have to work very hard to complete” before the WTO’s summer break, the goal indicated by many members, she added. Echoing similar expressions, China said that it “supports to advance the negotiations on this basis and try our utmost efforts to conclude it by July.” However, several countries cautioned the DG not to rush into any deliverables, particularly on fisheries subsidies, in the face of sharp differences. Indonesia, for example, said that it is against any attempt “aimed at making early harvest – especially without resolving our remaining concern regarding the balance of the text.” Indonesia said that it “looks forward for continued negotiations to achieve a comprehensive fisheries agreement as mandated in MC12.” On dispute settlement reform, China said that “restoring the well-functioning dispute settlement system by the end of this year is obviously the most urgent one.” Since the process has been formalized after the appointment of a new facilitator, China said “now is the time for intensive negotiations, to find solutions to the targeted issues by July.” “This is the prerequisite for reaching an agreement within 2024,” China said. Members broadly discussed five issues at the General Council meeting. They include: (1) the report of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration; (2) the report of the chairperson of the Trade Negotiations Committee and report by the Director-General, who apparently drove home the message for an outcome on fisheries subsidies in July; (3) report by the General Council chair on “follow-up to outcomes of MC13”; (4) Brazil’s proposal to start informal outreach meetings on agriculture, which received a mixed response; and (5) the unfinished discussion on “policy space for industrial development” by the African Group, which the US seemingly extended. MIXED RESPONSE TO BRAZIL’S PROPOSAL Brazil’s proposal to elevate the discussions on agriculture to the General Council, instead of the Doha negotiating body on agriculture, apparently received a mixed response, with major industrialized countries and some South American countries indicating their willingness to hold informal discussions. Commenting on the Brazilian proposal on how to move the agriculture negotiations forward, China said that “taking into account the current situation and the multiple challenges facing members, especially the developing members, we call on members to kick off frank and effective dialogues, to mull on the way forward in a creative, practical and constructive way, rather than to repeat previous failures.” China also cautioned that “the position-repeating approach will not lead agriculture to the successful outcome.” “The world has changed … We have to think in a new way and find out new approaches. Long-standing issues, food security, responses to climate change and so on, they all need us to find solutions.” The DG welcomed Brazil’s proposal, suggesting that she is confident that an outcome on agriculture is possible following the Brazilian initiative, said people familiar with the development. On the other hand, the African Group and several developing countries expressed sharp concerns, including on the danger of compromising the discussions in the Doha negotiating body on agriculture, said people who asked not to be quoted. Indonesia, on behalf of the Group of 33 (G33) developing countries, said that “we believe that our efforts going forward must be geared towards strengthening the Committee on Agriculture Special Session (CoASS) – rather than undermining it.” “As such, we affirm our strong preference for undertaking all negotiations within the CoASS as the mandated negotiating body of the WTO Agriculture Committee,” Indonesia said. It added that members “must level the playing field between Members in agriculture trade and correct the historical imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture, which have long favoured a few privileged Members.” Responding to the concerns, Brazil is understood to have said that the initiative to elevate the discussions on agriculture to the General Council and the proposed informal meetings are unlikely to duplicate work being carried out at the CoASS, said people who asked not to be quoted. To recall, the Brazilian proposal sought a decision on “moving the agriculture negotiations forward” to be adopted at the General Council in July before the summer break. The proposal suggested some significant changes in arriving at modalities in all areas, particularly on domestic support, before the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14). NFIDCs Meanwhile, in a related issue concerning agriculture, on the decision on net food-importing developing countries (NFIDCs), Costa Rica and Paraguay are seeking a change in the decision reached at Marrakesh, said people familiar with the development. In a “decision by the Committee on Agriculture at its meeting on 21 November 1995 relating to the establishment of a list of WTO net food-importing developing countries for the purpose of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on measures concerning the possible negative effects of the reform program on the least-developed and net-food importing developing countries”, it was explicitly agreed in the Marrakesh Agreement that “the following countries shall be listed as beneficiaries in respect of the measures provided for within the framework of the Decision: (a) least developed countries as recognized by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations; plus (b) any developing country Member of the WTO which was a net importer of basic foodstuffs in any three years of the most recent five-year period for which data are available and which notifies the Committee of its decision to be listed as a Net Food-Importing Developing Country for the purposes of the Decision.” Further, the decision stated that, “Notifications under paragraph 1(b) above should be accompanied by relevant statistical data in respect of total and net imports, on a value and quantity basis, and of their relative importance as a proportion of domestic consumption of the products concerned. Such notifications should be made at least 15 days prior to the regular March meeting of the Committee in any year.” Lastly, the decision makes clear that “the Committee shall establish a list of Net Food-Importing Developing Country Members on the basis of these notifications. This list shall be reviewed by the Committee at its regular March meetings.” In an alleged move to undermine this decision, which only a ministerial conference can change, Costa Rica and Paraguay want certain countries to be removed from the list, said people familiar with the development. Apparently, NFIDCs like Egypt, Jamaica, and Peru severely opposed any attempt to undermine the Marrakesh decision, said people familiar with the development. +
|
||
