|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May25/24) Yerevan, 20 May (D. Ravi Kanth) — A two-day retreat on “Sustainable Agriculture in the Multilateral Trading System”, held at the World Trade Organization on 5-6 May, has seemingly failed to bring about a coherent narrative on how members can address this issue at this critical juncture when the multilateral trading system appears to be fraught with unforeseen threats and dangers, said people familiar with the development. In a ten-page restricted unofficial room document (RD/GC/44), seen by the SUNS, “the compilation of the informal Facilitators’ feedback in the plenary session” highlighted several messages but lacked coherence and seemed more like the proverbial “dog’s breakfast”, a term first coined by the former chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Crawford Falconer of New Zealand, said people familiar with the document. (Unofficial room documents are intended solely for use in the WTO meeting rooms.) The breakout sessions at the retreat were facilitated by Ambassador Nadia Theodore (Canada), Ambassador Sof a Boza Martinez (Chile), Ambassador Julia Imene-Chanduru (Namibia), and Ambassador Kairat Torebayev (Kazakhstan). The two-day retreat, held under Chatham House rules, where remarks made by participants are not attributed to them, for example, suggested that: “Sustainable agriculture was noted as vital for Members, with some questioning whether unsustainable production is still viable in today’s global context.” Though the document noted that “Members expressed different views and suggestions on how best to take the conversation forward,” they also acknowledged that “the absence of a uniform definition of “sustainable agriculture” was highlighted, noting that how the concept is operationalized is highly dependent on local and regional conditions.” The participants agreed that while “a common standard [on sustainable agriculture] may be unrealistic, there was a shared sense that clarifying the scope of sustainable agriculture within the WTO – at least in broad terms – would be beneficial, provided that it allows for flexibility and country-specific customization.” “OVERLOADING” WTO AGENDA According to the document, several members cautioned “against overloading the WTO agenda, emphasizing the need to address existing issues and ensure coherence by integrating new discussions into ongoing work.” Members also noted that “trade distortions remain a significant concern”, as “Agriculture markets were described as complex and uneven, marked by high tariffs, protective measures and environmentally harmful subsidies.” More importantly, “there were again calls to utilize existing WTO procedures, such as the CoA-SS and the SPS and TBT Committees”. In the face of proliferating bilateral free trade agreements, there have been repeated attempts to scale down scientific standards. For example, the United States-United Kingdom free trade agreement has apparently attempted to undermine scientific standards with regards to chlorine-washed poultry products and beef hormone challenges. According to the unofficial room document, members expressed serious concerns “about the adverse effects of unilateral trade measures and non-tariff barriers, including regulatory measures that may disproportionately impact small-scale farmers.” It said during Session 2, the discussion centred on the potential for the WTO to foster sustainable agriculture by, for example: * Encouraging positive incentives and disciplining unilateral measures to avoid fragmentation; * Improving market access for agricultural products; * Limiting agricultural subsidies, particularly environmentally harmful subsidies; * Promoting sustainable agriculture through Green Box measures (which are exempted from any commitments); * Ensuring coherence through coordinated discussions across WTO bodies, including thematic sessions; * Involving all relevant WTO bodies and stakeholders, such as MSMEs and initiatives related to trade and women economic empowerment; * Facilitating dialogue and mutual understanding of Members’ interests, recognizing both offensive and defensive positions; * Sharing of good practices on sustainability, especially in Trade Policy Reviews; * Supporting the liberalization of agriculture and ways to ensure fair distribution of benefits. According to the document, there were suggestions that the WTO “could serve as a platform to, for instance: * Exchanging best practices, including through collaboration with other international organizations; * Develop a risk matrix for categorizing subsidies based on their impact on sustainability; * Offer a toolkit of policy options to guide Members toward more sustainable practices; * Support harmonization and mutual recognition of standards and certification schemes; * Address capacity-building and market access challenges for developing country Members, transitioning to sustainable agriculture. “GREEN PROTECTIONISM” According to the unofficial room document, several members expressed caution against “green protectionism”, saying that “unilateral measures such as trade-related climate measures should be addressed transparently and collaboratively.” The European Union came under severe criticism at the 30th anniversary meeting of the Committee on Market Access on 14 May for its alleged unilateral protectionist measures related to deforestation. According to the document, members also highlighted the importance of “integrating special and differential treatment to reflect the realities of LDCs and developing countries” in their efforts to address sustainable agriculture. During the discussions, “it was clear that sustainable agriculture remained an open concept – drawing to its social, economic and environmental aspects, both within the domestic and international context.” Several members “pointed out to the policy quandary of (i) how to increase productivity and ensure food security while addressing sustainability issues and climate change, and (ii) how to produce better quality food with low environmental impact.” In this regard, the document suggested that members “shared their domestic experience – reflecting the diverse realities of farmers and the agriculture sector including different conditions, ecosystems and topography.” CORE COMPETENCIES During the discussion on the WTO’s role and actionable ideas, several members drove home the message that “the Organization should focus on its core competencies (i.e. matters under WTO agreements).” It is common knowledge that under the leadership of the current WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala, the organization appears to have drifted into several new areas without a formal ministerial mandate, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. According to the document, some members made concrete suggestions that include: * Working towards a principle-based approach towards sustainable agriculture and how to incentivize and regulate this area through the rules-based system, taking into account the social, economic and environmental aspects. * Avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” approach. * Making sustainable agriculture fit in the discussions of WTO Councils and Committees and trying to measure the WTO’s contribution to achieving sustainable agriculture objectives. * Having a baseline understanding on the process of how to take forward the work on sustainable agriculture (that includes forum, topics for discussion, need for technical discussions and reporting structure). * Continuing ad-hoc discussions on sustainable agriculture under the auspices of the GC without affecting the negotiations in the CoA-SS and the work in WTO Councils and Committees. * Having sessions with farmers’ groups and the private sector to hear their perspectives and get a better sense of the challenges that face sustainable agriculture. * Having a reporting mechanism to the General Council of all technical work in WTO Bodies on sustainable agriculture. * Sharing best practices. According to the document, there were also suggestions on “trade rules and best practices”, such as: 1. Reaching clarity on sustainable agriculture – what is and what the WTO can do in this regard, and building trust to make progress in this area – through guiding Members, not prescribing rules and regulations. 2. Sustainability is also already embedded in the WTO agreements. The mandate relates to trade liberalization, tariff and non-tariff barriers, among others. So, the task for the WTO is how to operationalize the drivers of sustainable agriculture mentioned earlier today, including working with organizations and the private sector. 3. On reforming the Agreement on Agriculture, the group discussed: reducing trade distorting domestic support, particularly environmentally harmful subsidies; levelling the playing field; providing necessary policy space and flexibilities for those who need it (providing S&DT to help Members build their capacity in this area). 4. Reminding Members that this Organization is composed of 166 WTO Members. The onus is therefore on the Membership – collectively – to reform. This, in turn, necessitates each Member to exercise the requisite political will and flexibility to advance sustainable agriculture. In a similar vein, members made the following suggestions “on standards”: * Reducing fragmentation on trade-related environmental measures by setting rules and guidelines that would facilitate exporters to comply with international standards. * Harmonizing standards but mindful of the different conditions in countries. * Improving market access for sustainable agriculture products. * Supporting capacity to meet sustainability-related standards, especially in the SPS and TBT Committees. According to the document, on the issue of transfer of technology and know-how, members underscored the need for “tapping more of Green Box support – especially R&D” and “focusing on reducing trade distortions and barriers for the uptake of new technologies to drive sustainable agriculture forward.” +
|
||
