|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/05) Geneva, 5 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The Norwegian facilitator overseeing the discussions on the reform of the World Trade Organization on 4 March released a “draft Yaounde Ministerial Statement on WTO Reform” under his own responsibility, in an alleged attempt to radically transform the multilateral trade organization into a plurilateral body designed to serve the interests of the industrialized countries, particularly the United States, according to people familiar with the development. The other main purpose of the “top-down” draft agenda issued by the facilitator, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, appeared to be ensuring that the unresolved mandated issues are erased once and for all, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. At a time when the US has rejected the draft ministerial declaration on agriculture, it is incumbent on the developing countries to oppose the facilitator’s draft, which will be discussed on 5 March, the trade envoy added. Ahead of the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14), scheduled to begin in Yaounde, Cameroon, on 26 March and to conclude on 29 March, the facilitator sent the draft ministerial statement to members, a copy of which was seen by the SUNS. While the draft Yaounde Ministerial Statement recalls the “MC12 and MC13” decisions on WTO reforms, it appears to contradict the core mandates on reforms highlighted in those two ministerial outcomes. For example, MC12, held in Geneva in June 2022, emphasized in paragraph three of the outcome document: “We acknowledge the need to take advantage of available opportunities, address the challenges that the WTO is facing, and ensure the WTO’s proper functioning. We commit to work towards necessary reform of the WTO. While reaffirming the foundational principles of the WTO, we envision reforms to improve all its functions. The work shall be Member-driven, open, transparent, inclusive, and must address the interests of all Members, including development issues. The General Council and its subsidiary bodies will conduct the work, review progress, and consider decisions, as appropriate, to be submitted to the next Ministerial Conference.” In paragraph four of the MC12 outcome document, trade ministers acknowledged “the challenges and concerns with respect to the dispute settlement system including those related to the Appellate Body, recognize the importance and urgency of addressing those challenges and concerns, and commit to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.” As regards the outcome document of MC13, held in Abu Dhabi in February-March 2024, paragraph four stated: “We reaffirm our commitment made at our Twelfth Session to work towards necessary reform of the WTO to improve all its functions and acknowledge the progress made in this regard. We note and value the work done to date to improve the daily functioning of WTO Councils, Committees and Negotiating Groups with a view to enhancing the WTO’s efficiency, effectiveness, and facilitation of Members’ participation in WTO work.” However, the facilitator appears to have upended the mandates of MC12 and MC13 by seemingly imposing three issues raised by the major industrialized countries, particularly to appease the US: changing the practice of consensus-based decision-making, differentiating among developing countries in the application of special and differential treatment, and addressing level-playing-field issues – none of which were part of the Geneva or Abu Dhabi mandates, said two former chairs of the General Council, who asked not to be quoted. Expressing anguish over the manner in which the facilitator allegedly hijacked the mandates of MC12 and MC13, the two chairs said on background basis that developing countries must now decide whether they want the centrality of the multilateral trading framework, as enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement, to be preserved and safeguarded from the assault of the industrialized countries. “In this context,” the facilitator asked trade ministers gathering for MC14 to instruct their officials “to intensify their work with a view to providing concrete and substantive recommendations for action by MC15.” Effectively, the facilitator is telling trade ministers to launch a new “reform” round of trade negotiations while dismantling the mandated issues and the existing Doha work program – an approach the US echoed on 3 March during the agriculture negotiations by criticizing the chair for including a line on mandated issues in his draft agriculture declaration, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. The facilitator has informed members about undertaking “a mid-term review in advance of MC15 to assess progress and provide further direction.” REFORM WORK PLAN Under the sub-title “WTO Reform Work Plan,” the facilitator states: “Decision-making, Development and Level Playing Field issues – as a starting point Ministers note that Members engaged in reform discussions leading up to MC14 that were focused on three areas: Decision-making; Development; and Level Playing Field, as reflected in the Reform Facilitator’s Reports (one issued in December 2025 relating to Job/GC/483 and the other to be issued shortly) and the Annex to this statement.” The facilitator wants trade ministers at MC14 to declare that they “engaged in discussions on these areas at Yaounde and agree that these three issues will continue to be a focus of work on reform post-MC14.” Trade envoys privately expressed alarm over what the facilitator is asking their ministers to endorse, given that these three reform issues were never agreed upon with such specificity in the MC12 and MC13 mandates. Ambassador Olberg seems determined to fence off the three issues from all others, ensuring no linkage with “foundational and other issues” or dispute settlement – as such linkage would be unacceptable to the US, said a senior capital-based African official who asked not to be quoted. In all previous eight rounds of trade negotiations, contracting parties in GATT outlined give-and-take objectives. But the negotiations on reforms are being turned into a proverbial “my way or the highway” framework, said trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. On “Foundational and other issues,” the facilitator’s draft ministerial statement states: “Ministers also had discussions on Foundational Issues at MC14 – including systemic issues such as WTO principles and the balance of rights and obligations. Post-MC14 discussions will include these issues.” However, Ambassador Olberg did not explain why the foundational issues cannot be integrated into his reform agenda alongside the three core issues, the official said. On dispute settlement, the draft states: “Members acknowledge that the WTO Dispute Settlement System is not fully and well-functioning and needs to be reformed. Members agree that consultations on dispute settlement reform, under the auspices of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), should continue following MC14.” The level of specificity and importance attached to the three issues – decision-making, development, and level- playing field issues – while devaluing the foundational issues, dispute settlement reform, and the unresolved mandated issues, clearly indicates that the WTO could be transformed into a plurilateral organization. This contradicts the vision set out by African trade ministers in their Maputo Declaration for MC14 issued last week, the official said. MODALITIES The facilitator outlined the roadmap for the reform discussions between MC14 and MC15. The draft states: “Work will be conducted under the authority of the General Council. Dispute Settlement Reform will be under the auspices of the DSB. The WTO Reform process shall be Member-driven, open, transparent, and inclusive, and address the interests of all Members.” Yet, until now, the preparatory work on WTO reforms has not been carried out through a bottom-up, member- driven framework. If anything, all three issues were imposed by key industrialized countries, along with a middle-group of countries known as the “Friends of the System,” and were not proposed by developing country or LDC coalitions, said several trade envoys who asked not to be quoted. The facilitator states in his draft that “the General Council Chair will appoint facilitators for Decision-Making, Development, and Level Playing Field issues. The WTO Reform Facilitator will lead Members’ discussions on foundational issues. The facilitators will organize the work – in an inclusive manner – with the objective of building convergence based on Members’ submissions and contributions.” Ambassador Olberg adds: “Under the guidance of the General Council Chair, the WTO Reform Facilitator will continue to oversee and coordinate the overall process in a holistic manner, including the three initial workstreams, ensure coherence across the workstreams and avoid scheduling overlaps. The capacity constraints of Members, especially of resource-constrained delegations, will be taken into account in scheduling meetings.” During the recent spate of discussions, the General Council chair was apparently not involved in the reform work, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. Ambassador Olberg also proposed unusually detailed “Indicative Timelines/checkpoints,” suggesting that “work will resume in April 2026” and that “progress reports to the General Council will be provided in July 2026, December 2026, July 2027, and December 2027, with senior officials participating as necessary. Ministers will conduct a midway review ahead of MC15.” The facilitator said as part of flexibility, “the Work Plan is designed to remain flexible to ensure responsiveness and institutional agility. The identification of any particular issue as a “focus” issue or an otherwise important issue will not be interpreted in any way as limiting the scope of issues Members can address in the reform process or imply any particular sequencing. Moreover, this reform process will be without prejudice to work in any WTO committee or other body.” +
|
||
