|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Aug26/09) WTO:
Decision-making track grapples with key issues, plurilateral tensions Geneva, 7 Aug (D. Ravi Kanth) -- In his report issued on 4 August, the Facilitator on "decision-making", Ambassador Katsuro Nagai of Japan, said that the track began with a strong focus on the importance of transparency, predictability, inclusivity, and adequate preparation time. He stressed the importance of "remaining focused on substance while preserving a member-driven process." The Facilitator emphasized that "at this stage, we are not engaged in a negotiation, but in a discussion - one in which Members seek to deepen understanding, begin to identify areas of common interest, better understand points of divergence, and create the necessary space for candid exchanges." The constant refrain on decision-making, according to Ambassador Nagai, has been that "no Member questions decision-making by consensus, which remains an important practice of the WTO." More importantly, a large majority of members apparently drove home the message for preserving legitimacy, inclusivity, and the Member-driven nature of the organization. The Facilitator suggested that a large number of members reaffirmed that consensus "remains a cornerstone of the WTO's governance and an important safeguard, particularly for developing and least-developed country Members." Challenges While the notion of consensus is undisputed, many members noted increasing challenges to decision-making. These members appear to have stressed that the principal challenge lies not with consensus itself, but with a broader trust deficit arising from implementation gaps, including "in relation to past mandates, historical imbalances, unresolved development concerns, unequal participation, and declining confidence in the system." Members identified a range of challenges, including gaps in transparency, constraints on participation, and capacity limitations. Proposals to strengthen consensus-building included enhanced transparency, improved consultation processes, mediation mechanisms, and "greater accountability and responsibility in the use of objections." More critically, the Facilitator said members apparently raised important questions regarding "how concepts such as responsible consensus, material harm, affected interests, and written explanations of objections would operate in practice while preserving sovereign equality and the rights of all Members." In pushing plurilateral negotiations without adhering to the core principle of consensus in the Marrakesh Agreement, the small group of countries seeking changes in decision-making - especially powerful members like the United States - highlighted new methods in decision-making, including "responsible consensus" approaches, mediation, opt-outs, reservations, differentiated implementation periods, silent procedures, greater use of chair discretion, and the use of voting provisions contained in the Marrakesh Agreement. Regarding plurilateral initiatives, the powerful countries recognized "the increasingly important role that plurilateral negotiations can play by providing flexibility in contemporary trade rulemaking within a large and diverse membership." However, many members apparently raised sharp concerns regarding potential fragmentation, the protection of non-participants, and "the preservation of the multilateral character of the organization." According to the Facilitator, several concrete proposals were presented, including a five-stage framework and procedural frameworks for Annex 4 incorporation. Past mandates & trust "A number of Members emphasized that confidence in the WTO cannot be separated from the implementation of previously agreed commitments," the Facilitator observed. Several members argued that unimplemented mandates have contributed to a trust deficit. Proposals included stocktaking exercises and dedicated discussions on the Secretariat's compilation of mandates as confidence-building measures, while the very few powerful countries emphasized the need to keep discussions forward-looking. As part of next steps, Ambassador Nagai apparently encouraged informal engagement and reflection on the proposals. He informed members that the next session is scheduled for 22 September. The Facilitator reassured Members that the immediate objective "is not to negotiate outcomes, but rather, deepen understanding, clarify differences, identify emerging areas of common interest where possible, and continue the candid and constructive conversation that Members have repeatedly called for." +
|
||
