|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues
Geneva, 14 Sep (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Global civil society groups, which primarily represent the interests of farmers, fishers, workers, and small producers from developing countries, seem to be largely sidelined at the World Trade Organization’s Public Forum 2026, with only about 5% of total sessions allocated to them. In stark contrast, powerful lobbies such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which is quietly driving a major “regime change” in the WTO rules, and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) appear to dominate the Forum’s agenda, according to a source who asked to remain anonymous. This year’s Public Forum, to be held at the WTO headquarters from 15 to 18 September, frames services as being “at the centre of the conversation”, under the broad theme “Powering the future.” Meanwhile, agriculture - which provides employment and sustenance for billions in developing countries - is largely overlooked. “At a time when serious discussions are critical to leveling the playing field in a global agriculture system dominated by asymmetries, agriculture is being neglected,” said a trade official from a developing country who wished to remain unnamed. Amid these concerns, a coalition of global civil society groups, with many from developing countries, has sent a letter to the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, warning that “civil society is being systematically sidelined from the organization’s primary outreach event.” The global coalition, Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS), highlighted the “dramatic drop in representation” as a continuation of “severe, ongoing barriers faced by civil society organizations (CSOs) at recent WTO Ministerial Conferences in Buenos Aires and Abu Dhabi.” “The Public Forum was launched in 2001 as a way to regain legitimacy for the WTO after the disastrous Seattle ministerial in 1999 and widespread protests against corporate globalization,” the coalition stated. Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, a leading member of the coalition, said: “Since then, the Forum has steadily deteriorated into a propaganda tool for the WTO Secretariat that silences civil society voices to make room for international organizations, Member States, and business interests.” To restore accountability and rebuild stakeholder trust before the 2027 Public Forum, CSOs are urging the WTO Secretariat to take several essential steps: * Redefine CSO criteria: Limit CSO classification to entities directly accountable to workers, farmers, fishers, small producers, and the broader public. * Establish fair stakeholder allocations: Set clear, consultative quotas for different stakeholder groups. * Refocus WTO’s role: Ensure WTO-hosted panels prioritize external stakeholder participation. * Transparent selection criteria: Publish clear guidelines valuing inclusion of communities directly affected by trade policies. * Reinstate interpretation services: Bring back multilingual interpretation for broad, inclusive global participation. The coalition has requested an urgent meeting with Ms. Okonjo-Iweala during the Public Forum to address these concerns and establish a framework for inclusive participation. WTO’s response A WTO spokesperson strongly denied claims of civil society marginalization. “The claim that civil society is being systematically marginalized or silenced at the WTO Public Forum is not supported by the facts,” the spokesperson said. The spokesperson emphasized that “the Public Forum is open to the full range of stakeholders engaged in international trade, including WTO members, civil society organizations, businesses, parliamentarians, academics, international organizations, and youth representatives. Civil society remains an integral part of the Forum.” The spokesperson added that “civil society organizations submitted approximately 30% of all proposals and are organizing 18% of selected sessions.” The spokesperson insisted, “The WTO Secretariat does not determine which views civil society should represent or designate organizations as “legitimate” based on their positions. Doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of an open forum.” Finally, the spokesperson stressed, “The record is clear: civil society participates substantively in the Public Forum. The Forum is not reserved for any single constituency; it is a platform for all stakeholders." The reality Several sources speaking to SUNS reported that the WTO spokesperson’s narrative does not align with the reality regarding space and sessions allotted to civil society. A key CSO representative noted, “If civil society accounted for 30% of submissions and 18% of selections, it means their proposals were selected at roughly half the rate of other constituencies. A neutral process would produce broadly equal shares. The Secretariat has published no selection criteria, no breakdown of rejections by constituency or topic, and offers no appeal or review mechanism.” The representative also explained, “The programme grid shows 115 sessions, with only about 70 classified as Working Sessions - the only format open to external applicants.” A glance at the three-day agenda reveals that the opening day features five curated plenaries, including two by the WTO Secretariat and one business leaders’ dialogue - none featuring civil society in prominent webcast slots. The first high-level panel, “Trade and Cooperation for the Future” (15 September, 10:00-11:15, Room CR), is organized by the ICC and IISD, neither of which represent a development perspective. Civil society’s 20 sessions are confined to the margins of a programme largely dominated by the Secretariat and its chosen partners. The claim that the Forum is an open platform allowing broad perspectives is also challenged. The Secretariat has outsourced 45 “Curated Conversations” roundtables to the Geneva Trade Platform, described as closed-door and by invitation-only. These roundtables run concurrently with working sessions inside the WTO building, with attendance controlled by individual session organizers independent of the WTO or Geneva Trade Platform. “Neither institution knows or accounts for who is admitted,” said an Asian CSO representative. The representative added, “A closed, invitation-only track equal to around 40% of the public programme cannot be reconciled with the claim of an open platform.” “The exchanges the Secretariat touts as candid and cross-sectoral have been moved behind closed doors and beyond institutional accountability,” the representative said. Regarding the claim that the Secretariat does not determine which civil society views are represented, the process appears to be contradictory: the Secretariat manages the session selection and, according to its call for proposals, favours panels that it judges “diverse and balanced.” “Unexplained selection is just designation by another name,” said the representative, pointing to a programme heavily tilted towards pro-investment facilitation, plurilateral agreements, new services disciplines, domestic regulation commitments, electronic commerce, and the B20 agenda - while critical perspectives remain few and far between. “If everything were transparent, the Secretariat could solve this by publishing anonymized selection data by constituency and topic,” the representative added. The WTO spokesperson reiterated that the Forum is not for any single constituency but a platform for all stakeholders. However, the Forum, first held as the Public Symposium in 2001, emerged from the WTO’s external transparency agenda following the 1990s crises, under Article V:2 of the Marrakesh Agreement and the 1996 NGO Guidelines (WT/L/162, adopted 18 July 1996). Those guidelines barred NGOs from direct involvement in WTO work and meetings (paragraph 6), offering interaction through symposia and briefings instead (paragraph 4). The Public Forum is the successor to that channel, explained an African representative, adding, “For business, it is one of many access points. For public-interest civil society, it is the only compensating channel created by the guidelines.” In short, portraying the Forum as a platform-for-all ignores the unequal standing of different constituencies, placing the burden on civil society, which lacks other channels within the system, representatives complained. +
|
||
