|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul24/06) Geneva, 5 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) — Attempts to bring process-related changes such as improving the preparatory process before a World Trade Organization’s ministerial conference and maximizing the value of a ministerial conference can only succeed if substantive mandated issues are addressed on an expeditious basis, said people familiar with the development. It appears that the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, is working hard behind the scenes to seek accomplishment of the second wave of the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement by end-July. If she succeeds in her attempts to secure a deal on fisheries subsidies, then it could boost her prospects for a second term before the US elections in November, said people familiar with the development. The mandate for the fisheries subsidies negotiations was secured at the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017. In contrast, the mandates for the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries and the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security purposes were agreed well before the mandate for the fisheries subsidies negotiations. Yet, the two issues have invariably been pushed into a state of limbo since MC10 in Nairobi, Kenya in December 2015 and MC11. The seemingly unequal treatment meted out by the WTO leadership to PSH and SSM as compared to fisheries subsidies appears to be rather stark, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Without addressing these substantive issues, any attempt to merely improve process-related issues, bypassing the mandated bodies, could further undermine the trust and confidence in the rules-based, member-driven multilateral trade body, said people familiar with the development. The DG, for example, held a green room meeting on agriculture, apparently to broker an understanding between Brazil on one side, and the African Group on the other over Brazil’s proposed informal process. However, it is not clear what emerged from the green room meeting, as the African Group remains sharply concerned over attempts to weaken bodies like the Doha agriculture negotiating body, also referred to as the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (COASS), and to move issues to informal processes by bringing proposals directly to the General Council, said several trade envoys who asked not to be quoted. TALE OF TWO CONTRASTING PROPOSALS Two contrasting proposals have been floated at the World Trade Organization – one from a group of countries from South America on how to improve the preparatory process before a ministerial conference, and the other from major industrialized countries, as well as China on maximizing the value of such a conference. The proposal (WT/GC/W/940) by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay noted that trade ministers at MC13 “instructed the General Council and its subsidiary bodies to continue to work towards necessary reform of the WTO and report progress, as appropriate, to the next Ministerial Conference.” The ten South American countries suggested the need “to rethink the negotiation processes to better serve its objectives and deliver”, as the WTO celebrates its 30th anniversary. According to the proposal, through several submissions, “Members have already highlighted challenges and concerns regarding the negotiating function as it currently stands.” The proposal highlighted “some of these concerns on the negotiations that take place before and during the Ministerial Conferences.” These concerns include: 1. Long intervals among high-level meetings and their subsequent impact on oversight and responsiveness to global challenges; 2. Unnecessarily protracted decision-making and overburdening of Ministerial Conference agendas; and 3. Challenges concerning inclusive participation and transparency. The ten South American countries argued that their proposals “share the common objective of enhancing the transparency and inclusive participation to boost decision-making in the WTO.” They emphasized that their suggestions “focus on the negotiation processes both within the General Council and the Ministerial Conferences.” Citing Article IV of the Marrakesh Agreement, which empowers the General Council to conduct the functions entrusted to the Ministerial Conference in the intervals between its meetings, the group suggested that to better support “Ministerial level decision-making, in the years between Ministerial Conferences, one of the TNC, HoDs and General Council meetings could be held at Senior Officials Level (SOM) to revisit the status of the ongoing negotiations, provide guidance, and endorsement, and take decisions if necessary.” Further, the group wants that “the SOM should be held in a negotiating mode so as to avoid reading statements and interventions without leading to real or authentic discussions.” The South American countries said “the date of these meetings should be agreed upon and set with a minimum of 3 months in advance, so as to ensure full participation.” The ten countries argued that “transparency in text-based negotiations before and during Ministerial Conferences is crucial to confidence building and to ensure a sense of involvement and ownership.” They contended that their aim is “to encourage wider and more inclusive participation in consultations and early access to the texts under negotiation.” They proposed that “the Ministerial gatherings could benefit from improvements in: a. Transparency: i. The public announcement of all meetings (i.e. on the boards), specifying their subject and participants, regardless of their format (small groups, green rooms, or plenary); ii. The availability of the texts under negotiation (whether in green rooms or in plenary meetings) to the membership without delay; iii. Holding daily information meetings on the work done on the different topics, particularly in small groups, green rooms, group consultations, or bilateral meetings; iv. The use of digital tools, including apps, to enhance transparency; v. The appointment of a high-level liaison official focused on transparency, to enhance the flow of information and ensure increased communication and inclusivity. b. Inclusive participation: i. Balanced participation of the membership and their positions in the invitations to Green Rooms/small groups; ii. The existence of overflow rooms so that delegations can follow all the meetings, to the extent possible; iii. The appointment of the facilitators of the negotiations should be decided in consultation with regional coordinators and prioritize officials with prior knowledge of the subjects at hand. c. Duration of Ministerial Conferences: Ministerial Conferences should last a maximum of 2/3 days, prior to which a two-day SOM could take place. The exact duration and dates of each Ministerial Conference should be communicated to the Membership no later than 3 months ahead of its set date. Additional efforts should be made not to extend Ministerial Conferences beyond the agreed duration dates.” REVISED PROPOSAL In its revised proposal (WT/GC/W/873/Rev.3) submitted on 27 June, Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong (China), Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Thailand, and Turkiye argued that trade ministers at MC13 “reaffirmed their commitment to work towards necessary reform of the WTO to improve all its functions, and instructed WTO bodies to continue this work.” The proposal, submitted ahead of a retreat on 8 July, underscored the need to “find new ways of ensuring steady, constructive negotiations in Geneva to support their decision-making.” Under the slogan of “maximizing the value of WTO ministerial conferences”, the nine countries said, “we need to maximise the value of ministerial exchanges on rulemaking and acknowledge the value to the Membership of regular political input and exchange on issues of shared interest.” They said, “changing the approach to Ministerial Conferences will minimise the risks posed to the credibility of the Organization while continuing the WTO’s important work on rulemaking.” The nine countries suggested ” five approaches” to help the Membership better use Ministerial Conferences: * Deeper policy engagement: Ministerial Conferences could be used for Ministers to engage more seriously with and deliberate on emerging policy issues facing the global trade regime on a thematic basis. Building on the successful “Ministerial Conversations” at MC13, future Conferences could continue to spotlight global challenges that intersect with trade policy, including climate change, inclusivity, gender, health and development, ideally in a break-out group format to facilitate genuine conversation. * A focus on WTO reform: World leaders and trade ministers consistently list WTO reform as a top priority for the Organization. For the next few Ministerial Conferences, Ministers’ engagement should focus on reforming the WTO to address future trade challenges. * Deliberative and rulemaking work: Ministerial Conferences could continue to be used for Ministers to consider emerging trade policy issues and launch new rule-making projects where deemed appropriate. In doing so, Ministers could provide officials with early direction to guide their negotiations, as well as to bring further attention to the WTO’s contribution to important trade policy debates. * Inter-sessional Ministerial gatherings: As necessary, the Director-General, as Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee, could call a gathering of Ministers – as she did on the fisheries subsidies negotiations in mid-2021, or in other configurations. As needed, such Ministerial gatherings could occur between Ministerial Conferences on an ad hoc basis. * Endorsing outcomes and negotiating guidance: Ministerial Conferences could endorse negotiations concluded in substance in Geneva, building on improved processes to foster convergence in relevant WTO bodies in Geneva. In those cases where negotiating gaps have been narrowed considerably by officials, Ministers may, on occasion, be in a position to close negotiations. Ministers could also provide guidance during Ministerial Conferences for ongoing negotiations. This approach would avoid the challenges associated with short, often high-pressure and unpredictable Conferences, which can impact negatively on the credibility of outcomes.” The nine countries, some of them being proponents of the notion of “responsible consensus” and “constructive consensus” among others, said that members “should consider further implementation complemented by more substantive reforms to how Members progress work and deliver outcomes in Geneva.” In short, the above two proposals seek substantial process-related changes under the garb of improving the decision-making process ahead of ministerial conferences by allegedly giving short shrift to the institutional structures established under previous specific ministerial mandates, said people familiar with the development. +
|
||
