|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov24/03) Geneva, 4 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — The African Group has seemingly “thrown a spanner in the works” over the process of appointing facilitators to oversee the resumption of the stalled Doha agriculture negotiations, proposed by the World Trade Organization’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, on the basis of “convergence” and not “consensus”, said people familiar with the development. In a letter sent to the DG and the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations on 30 October, seen by the SUNS, the coordinator of the African Group, Ambassador Jean-Pierre Baptiste of Chad, said the appointment of facilitators to jumpstart the negotiations should be implemented “provided that there is consensus on it among members.” The brief letter by the African Group’s coordinator said: “While we are still reflecting and consulting with our capitals and within our Group on the proposed facilitator-led process, the African Group remains open to discussions on this process which should take into account its concerns and priorities and provided that there is consensus on it among members.” Despite opposition from Nigeria to the call by the African Group for “consensus”, a large majority of members within the African Group seem to have suggested that decisions must be based on “consensus” as opposed to “convergence”, said several African Group members. “We wanted to convey that the allegedly new mantra used by Ms Ngozi and the chair of the WTO’s General Council, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, to decide things on the basis of “convergence” but not “consensus”, is not acceptable to us,” said an African official, who asked not to be quoted. “Attempts are underway to kill the consensus-based decision-making at the WTO,” the official added. It remains to be seen whether the DG and the General Council chair will respect the decision of the African Group or adopt a “brute” strategy to ignore their demand, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. Several South Asian countries – India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan – as well as Indonesia among others are seemingly upset over the manner in which the DG and the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, taking place in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS), pressed ahead with their decision on the proposed facilitator-led process, said people familiar with the development. FACILITATOR-LED PROCESS At the CoA-SS meeting on 22 October, the DG said that she is proceeding with the facilitator-led process based on “convergence”, even though India and members of the African Group protested against her decision at the meeting, said people familiar with the discussions. Subsequently, the DG and the CoA-SS chair, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, underscored that the facilitator-led process “is aimed at assisting Members to return – as soon as possible – to a fruitful [substantive] negotiation progress and to break the current logjam that has prevented Members from achieving concrete outcomes since 2015.” They jointly wrote, “we hope that all Members will give this process a chance, given that the current impasse in the COA Special Session and its Dedicated Sessions does not serve any Member’s interest.” In addition, they offered answers to the questions raised by members. The questions and answers, as reported in the SUNS, are as follows: “1. Would the process imply some sequencing among topics and what would be the relationship between the topics under negotiations and cross-cutting issues? Answer: The process is meant to facilitate the work of the CoA-SS. It will respect the existing mandates (with a qualification that “the mandates stemming from the Agreement on Agriculture and relevant Decisions and Declarations can be found on: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_e.htm). 2. Question on cross-cutting issues? Answer: A similar facilitator-led track would be put in place for cross-cutting issues, covering notably food security, sustainability and transparency. 3. What would be the purpose of the facilitators’ led process? Answer: The process should be regarded as a “pre-negotiation” phase to iron out issues standing in the way of negotiations. Its purpose would be to facilitate engagement among Members on the different topics under negotiations in a focused and interactive manner with a view to articulating a pathway forward and helping to rebuild trust. This could include holding topic-by-topic thematic sessions, thus laying the groundwork for further progress and engagement in text-based negotiations in the CoA-SS and its dedicated sessions. Some topic-by-topic thematic sessions, held by a pre-announced schedule, could also take place during the CoA- SS and its dedicated sessions. Members may also consider the possibility for periodic engagement of Senior Officials to address the most sensitive issues. 4. What would be the role of the facilitators and how would they be selected? Answer: The role of facilitators would be to facilitate discussions within the Working Group under their responsibility with a view to making progress in the negotiations. In the interest of transparency, the facilitators would report periodically to the CoA-SS and dedicated sessions meetings. The whole process would remain under the responsibility and supervision of the CoA-SS chair. Regarding the selection of facilitators, the chair would invite all delegations to propose delegates for consideration for appointment. Once nominations are received, the CoA-SS chair will consult with the Members with a view to agreeing on a slate of names as facilitators. As a general rule, it is envisaged to appoint two facilitators overseeing as appropriate the following: * PSH, SSM and Cotton * Domestic Support * Market Access * [Export competition, Export restrictions, other issues, this grouping is subject to further discussions among key stakeholders] * Cross-cutting issues – food security, sustainability and transparency 5. How to ensure inclusiveness and transparency? Answer: The discussion groups would be open to all interested members to ensure inclusiveness. In addition, facilitators would provide regular reports on their activities to the CoA-SS and meetings of the Dedicated Sessions on PSH and SSM to ensure transparency. 6. How to address capacity constraints of small delegations and would Capital-based officials be involved? Answer: Working Groups’ meetings would be organized in a sequenced manner to avoid overlap, also taking into account, as far as possible, other WTO meetings. Working Groups would be organized in a hybrid format if Members so request to ensure broad participation, including by capital-based officials. The frequency of meetings will be decided by the facilitators in consultation with Members and the CoA-SS Chair. It would take into account the specificity of each topic, including past mandates and previous work undertaken, while ensuring balance across the board. 7. How would the WTO Secretariat support the process? Answer: The WTO Secretariat would provide logistical support to the facilitators, including room bookings and preparing papers upon request. It would also be willing upon request to organize seminars to give Members an opportunity to listen to and exchange with external high-level experts on topics of interest.” +
|
||
