|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/04) Geneva, 4 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The United States on 3 March appeared to reject the “Draft Declaration on Agriculture, Trade and Food Security” issued by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiating body for the World Trade Organisation’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14), to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon, from 26 to 29 March. In contrast, many members, including China, the European Union, India and the African Group signalled their willingness to work with the draft text as a basis, though with varying degrees of emphasis/concerns, including questions, said people familiar with the development. At the meeting of the Doha agriculture negotiating body, also referred to as the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS), several members from the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries from South America – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Costa Rica, among others – raised sharp questions about the draft text issued by the chair of the CoA-SS, Ambassador Ali Sarfraz Hussain of Pakistan, suggesting that it appeared somewhat imbalanced, while not outrightly rejecting the text, said people familiar with the proceedings. During the two sessions of discussions on 3 March, members seemingly accepted the draft text, though with some differing views in some of their interventions, with the US rejecting the text on the one hand and a majority of members indicating their readiness to work with it, on the other. It remains to be seen what the chair will propose in his report, to be issued on 6 February, said people familiar with the development. CHAIR’S DRAFT TEXT To recall, the chair’s restricted draft text (Job/AG/273), issued on 27 February, states the following objectives in its preamble: A. “The long-term objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and of providing for substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection.” B. Affirms “special and differential treatment for developing country Members is an integral part of the negotiations.” C. Recognizes “the urgent need to strengthen global food security, particularly for developing country Members, including least developed countries and net food-importing developing countries.” D. Notes “the heightened vulnerabilities of farmers, particularly smallholder farmers, and rural communities, which threaten livelihoods and food security and have been exacerbated by extreme weather events and recent global crises, including pandemics and conflicts, requiring urgent, balanced, and development-oriented responses.” E. It also notes “with concern the limited progress achieved to date on several negotiating issues and acknowledging the significant divergences [from the Argentinian proposal] on negotiating approaches and on possible outcomes across areas of the negotiations, and the need to address the existing stalemate in the negotiations.” The preamble is a sharp reminder of how past mandates stemming from the Doha Round of trade negotiations, as well as the commitment to finalize the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security in developing countries and the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) at the WTO’s 10th Ministerial Conference (MC10), held in Nairobi, Kenya in December 2015, are being buried in one go, lamented a former General Council chair from an African country. DECISIONS FOR MC14 The operational part of the draft text for MC14, which is yet to be ironed out in negotiations that started on 3 March, includes the following: 1. “Commits to engaging constructively and transparently to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and to deliver outcomes that, inter alia, strengthen global food security [directly from the Jamaican proposal, which according to one South American trade envoy, was formulated to take on board the interests of the US and the G10 farm-defensive countries].” 2. “Commits to continuing the agriculture negotiations pursuant to the reform process set out in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and subsequent Ministerial Decisions and Declarations [relaunching negotiations as proposed by Argentina and mentioning subsequent Ministerial Decisions and Declarations to placate Indonesian concerns].” 3. “Reaffirms that the negotiations shall continue to take place in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session (CoA-SS) and its Dedicated Sessions, based on discussions among Members, including their existing and future contributions and submissions.” 4. “Requests the CoA-SS chair [with the launch of negotiations it is required to elect a new chair, going by the existing Doha trade negotiations ministerial mandate], working with Members, to promptly establish a calendar of meetings after this Conference and set milestones, as appropriate [an element from the Indonesian proposal].” 5. “Requests senior officials to meet periodically after MC14 to review progress and provide political guidance, as needed.” 6. “Invites Members to continue supporting the negotiations and efforts to enhance food security, including through technical assistance and capacity-building initiatives for developing country Members with support from relevant international organizations.” US REJECTION The chair held discussions in two groups of 20 members each. In the first group, Ambassador Hussain included all major countries such as the US, the European Union, China, India, Brazil, and the African Group coordinator among others. In his intervention on the chair’s draft text, the US trade envoy, Ambassador Joseph Barloon, is understood to have questioned the need for an agriculture text for MC14, casting doubt on the material basis for the entire document issued by the chair, said participants familiar with the discussions. The US appears to have argued that by presenting a text, the chair is proposing to conduct negotiations based on the past mandates – which is a problem for the US, said people familiar with the development. The US trade envoy apparently said that when divergences exist among members, they cannot accept the draft text, adding that they have a fundamental problem with it as they do not see any value in it, said people familiar with the discussions. MIXED POSITIONS China apparently signalled its acceptance of the draft text. India and the African Group raised several questions while maintaining that the chair’s draft text could serve as a basis for further discussions. Incidentally, India, the African Group and others did not offer any drafting suggestions, said people familiar with the development. Among the questions raised by India and the African Group was whether the chair’s draft text would dilute the past mandates in any manner, to which the chair did not offer any clarification, said one of the participants, speaking on condition of anonymity. Another issue raised by India was on the lack of emphasis on policy flexibilities such as specific subsidy provisions for developing countries, including in programmes such as public stockholding for food security, on grounds that they remain under-developed, said people familiar with the development. China appears to have made no substantive comments, while suggesting that it is ready to accept the text. In a similar vein, the EU apparently did not express any reservations about the text, while offering some minor suggestions, said people familiar with the discussions. Japan is understood to have said that it can accept the text as it stands, said another participant, who asked not to be quoted. Several members of the Cairns Group from South America – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Costa Rica – severely questioned the chair for his seemingly excessive emphasis on food security in the draft text, said a South American participant, who asked not to be quoted. The South American countries conveyed to the chair that the purpose of the negotiations is to achieve a market- oriented trading framework that would pave the way for agricultural reforms. The four major farm-exporting countries, with varying levels of emphasis, said that while food security is important, the chair had turned it into an outcome to be achieved, the participant said. They also raised another issue: if members are calling for a continuation of the negotiations, it must be with the clear purpose of achieving concrete outcomes in addressing reform issues across the three agriculture pillars. They said that after long-held negotiations in agriculture, which are now stalemated, achieving meaningful progress remains a major task, adding that it can only happen after the issue of the stalemate is addressed, the South American participant said. Argentina argued that the issue of the stalemate should have been brought upfront in the preamble rather than placed in the operational part, the participant added. They also questioned the need to reaffirm the mandate to continue the negotiations, which is already prescribed in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, telling the chair that there was no need to reaffirm something already covered in that article, the participant said. Even some G10 farm-defensive countries, such as Norway, are understood to have broadly accepted the draft text as a basis for further negotiations, said people familiar with the development. The group of least-developed countries also accepted the draft text, while the Cotton-4 countries – Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad – expressed disappointment that the text contained nothing on cotton. However, the C-4 countries apparently accepted the draft text, said people familiar with the development. During the discussions, the issue of breakout sessions, which Australia and the United Kingdom apparently proposed, was debated. With little to no support for breakout sessions, members converged on the idea of a longer plenary meeting to allow more time for ministers to voice their specific concerns at MC14. In short, the chair will have to take a “make-or-break” decision on 6 March – either modifying his draft text or abandoning it entirely in light of US opposition, said several participants who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
