|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/10) Geneva, 10 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The facilitator’s report on World Trade Organization reform, circulated just days before the General Council (GC) meeting on 10-11 March, appears to have generated both procedural and substantive tensions that are likely to shape the political atmosphere heading into the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14), to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon on 26-29 March, according to people familiar with the development. Privately, questions of credibility have also been raised about the facilitator’s report, as he seems to have allegedly compounded the issues by framing his report around three arbitrarily chosen themes – decision-making, development, and “level playing field” issues – using ambiguous attributions like “some members said and others said”. These specific themes, trade envoys privately note, were never part of the MC13 Abu Dhabi Ministerial Declaration nor the MC12 Geneva Ministerial Declaration. For context, paragraph 4 of the MC13 Ministerial Declaration states: “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. We instruct the General Council and its subsidiary bodies to continue to conduct this work and report progress as appropriate to the next Ministerial Conference.” This commitment builds on the MC12 Ministerial Declaration, which stated unambiguously in paragraph three: “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. We acknowledge 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.” However, several trade envoys, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the facilitator appears to have knowingly constructed a reform agenda that is inconsistent with both the MC12 and MC13 outcome documents. FACILITATOR’S REPORT The 12-page restricted document (JOB/GC/491) in question, seen by the SUNS, was prepared by Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway in his capacity as Facilitator on WTO Reform. As the report itself acknowledges, it is issued under the facilitator’s own responsibility and does not represent a consensus position of the membership – a disclaimer that carries more weight than it might initially appear, according to trade envoys. The facilitator’s role is seemingly specific and limited: to organize discussions, compile views, and identify areas of convergence or divergence on reforming the organization. The facilitator does not appear to hold independent authority to define negotiating outcomes or advance texts for adoption – or, in this case, “endorsement.” That authority belongs to the membership, exercised through the General Council. A trade envoy noted that the facilitator was appointed by the General Council chair, not elected by members, and operates within parameters set by the membership. Yet, critics say the report goes considerably further than compiling views. It presents a draft Ministerial Statement on WTO Reform and a draft post-MC14 Work Plan, recommending that both be submitted to ministers in Yaounde “for their consideration and endorsement.” One Latin American negotiator described this as “significant overreach,” noting that “the facilitator is positioning himself as the author of outcomes rather than the organizer of a conversation.” The procedural picture becomes murkier when the report is read alongside the annotated agenda for the March General Council meeting, circulated separately as JOB/GC/488. Under item 2 of that agenda, the facilitator is listed among several chairs expected to report on MC14-related work. The General Council is expected to “take note” of those reports – a procedural step that, in WTO practice, simply records that a report has been presented and that delegations have expressed views. It does not imply endorsement, adoption, or agreement with the contents. The gap between “endorsement” and “taking note” goes to the heart of how texts that have not been discussed or agreed upon by members in Geneva are being positioned in relation to the ministerial process. An African trade envoy put it plainly: “We are being asked to endorse at the political level something that has not been agreed at the working level. That inverts how decisions are supposed to be made in this organization.” The process that produced the report has also drawn scrutiny. According to the document, February was organized as a “WTO Reform Month” built around breakout sessions, bilateral consultations, and a concluding plenary meeting on 5 March. While informal consultations are routine, several developing country delegations have privately raised concerns about the structural limitations of formats that rely heavily on small group discussions and bilateral engagement. “For delegations with one or two people covering the entire WTO agenda, this kind of process is not inclusive by default – it requires deliberate effort to make it so, and that effort has been insufficient,” said a Geneva-based ambassador from a small island developing state. At the plenary meeting to consider the facilitator’s report, a number of members rejected it, instead opting for an approach proposed by Paraguay that favours a process-oriented outcome, warning of the risk of having nothing, according to a South American trade envoy. A related concern raised by several delegations is that the General Council chair has not convened open, plenary-style discussions where all members could engage with the facilitator’s texts on an equal footing. The absence of such sessions makes it difficult for smaller delegations to track how drafts have evolved or to register their positions in a transparent and recorded setting. THE THREE ISSUES Substantively, the facilitator’s report organizes the reform discussions around the three areas – decision-making, development, and “level playing field” issues – which form the “starting point” of the proposed post-MC14 work plan. On decision-making, the report confirms that no member challenges the principle of consensus. The debate instead concerns whether additional procedural tools or forms of flexibility should be explored. However, the language around “decision thresholds” and the integration of plurilateral agreements into the WTO framework has alarmed members who view consensus as both a right and a safeguard. A Caribbean negotiator observed that “flexibility is a word that sounds neutral until you realize it means some members would have less say over outcomes that affect them directly.” On development, the report reflects deep divisions. Some members emphasize unresolved development mandates, the need to safeguard policy space, and the centrality of special and differential treatment (S&DT). Others frame development primarily through the lens of integration into global value chains. The report flags concerns about the term “targeted” availability of S&DT – language that several developing country groupings see as an attempt to narrow access to flexibilities they regard as existing treaty commitments, not concessions to be renegotiated, said a former General Council chair. The third workstream – “level playing field” issues – remains the least clear and potentially the most problematic, according to an African trade policy analyst. The report covers everything from industrial subsidies to transparency and emerging agricultural issues, but provides little specificity about how these discussions would be structured. “The breadth of this category means it could be used to open any negotiating front, depending on who has the political weight to set the agenda,” the analyst suggested. Several
trade envoys have criticised the report for failing to outline clear
pathways toward reconciliation. Although the report catalogs disagreements,
often noting that "some members" hold one stance while "others"
hold another, the draft ministerial statement on WTO reform and its
Work Plan were ultimately biased, reflecting the Facilitator’s preference
for a particular position. The effect is a 12-page document that
appears comprehensive, but lacks analytical basis and justification
for the draft texts to Yaounde for ministerial adoption. There is no independent record, no compiled text reflecting members’ own language, and no mechanism for verifying the summary’s accuracy. The report does not explain how disagreements were weighed or why certain formulations were chosen over others, said a South American trade envoy. FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES Beyond these three areas, the draft work plan also introduces “foundational issues” – including MFN, reciprocity, the balance of rights and obligations, and the role of the WTO Secretariat. Here, the divergence is particularly sharp. While some members argue that these topics are essential, others view their inclusion as an attempt to reopen settled principles. “Once you put MFN and non-discrimination on the table as items for reform, you are no longer strengthening the system – you are renegotiating its foundations,” said a former General Council chair from Africa. The facilitator’s own assessment, contained in Section 6 of his report, has itself become a point of contention. The text warns that “the greatest risk is not doing too much but doing too little” and argues that a ministerial commitment “anchors expectations, guides capitals, steadies markets, and buys time for needed reform.” Several delegations have noted that this reads more as advocacy for a particular level of ambition – one that aligns closely with positions advanced by the European Union and like-minded members. A Caribbean negotiator remarked that “the facilitator’s assessment section could have been written in any number of European capitals. It reflects one perspective presented as institutional common sense.” Multiple delegations have also privately raised questions about the role of the WTO Secretariat in shaping the reform texts and managing the consultation process. While the Secretariat’s function is to serve the membership, the perception among several developing country groupings is that institutional resources have been deployed in ways that favour a particular reform trajectory – one that emphasizes rule-making ambition over the development concerns and implementation deficits that many members regard as more pressing. The line between technical support and substantive influence is not always easy to draw, but the concern is real and widely shared, said people familiar with the ongoing developments. As it stands, the report raises a fundamental institutional question that the General Council will need to confront: whether texts that have not been agreed upon in Geneva should be presented to ministers as potential ministerial outcomes. In a member-driven organization, the sequencing of decisions determines who shapes the agenda and on what terms. The General Council meeting in March will be the first real test of whether members intend to clarify that distinction – or allow it to remain conveniently blurred, said people familiar with the negotiations. +
|
||
