|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec25/17) Geneva, 15 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — Several developing and least-developed countries – including Brazil, Bangladesh, Antigua and Barbuda, India, and Indonesia – on 12 December appear to have cautioned against the seemingly heavy-handed approach adopted by the WTO’s leadership in pushing their respective priorities under the proverbial carpet, said people familiar with the development. The United States is understood to have outlined its priorities for the World Trade Organisation’s upcoming 14th ministerial conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon on 26-29 March 2026, which would include prioritising WTO reforms, pursuing plurilateral initiatives, and, more importantly, seeking an indefinite extension of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, said people familiar with the development. At a meeting of the WTO’s Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 12 December, new fissures concerning preparations for MC14 came into the open, with several countries having pointedly reminded the WTO’s Director-General, Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, about her role in a member-driven organisation, according to participants familiar with the development. In his first intervention at the TNC meeting, the new US trade envoy to the WTO, Ambassador Joseph Barloon, stated that the US has long emphasised reforming the WTO. To recall, the Trump administration during its first term called for differentiation among developing countries for availing of special and differential treatment (S&DT) under a seemingly skewed criterion, which was rejected by members in 2022. Yet, in an apparent attempt at appeasing the US, which with its unilateral reciprocal tariffs has turned the WTO and the multilateral trading system upside down, the facilitator overseeing the WTO reform discussions has seemingly framed the three issues of reform as moving away from the principle of consensus-based decision making, differentiating on the self-designated framework for availing of S&DT, as well as bringing in new “level playing field” issues, said people familiar with the development. Against this backdrop, Ambassador Barloon appears to have lent support to the ongoing efforts to reform the organization based on these three issues, said people familiar with the discussions. The second issue raised by the US trade envoy is to continue indefinitely the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, even as the moratorium is mandated to be terminated at MC14. Trade ministers had agreed at the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi in March 2024 “to maintain the current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until the 14th Session of the Ministerial Conference or 31 March 2026, whichever is earlier. The moratorium and the Work Programme will expire on that date.” The US demand on the moratorium, which has also been raised by Barbados, would be tantamount to reversing the decision of MC13 at MC14, a development that clearly signals that there is no sanctity to past ministerial decisions and that they can be changed or reversed according to the priorities of the US and other countries, said people familiar with the development. Ambassador Barloon apparently conveyed that he does not accept the idea that ministers should be reaffirming past mandates, saying that such an action is not required, said participants familiar with the meeting. The US trade envoy is understood to have suggested that once the mandate is there, people have to just work pursuant to that mandate, and that ministers don’t need to unnecessarily reaffirm that mandate each time, said people familiar with the development. Ambassador Barloon appears to have emphasized the continuation of the “plurilateral” approach by suggesting that trade ministers at MC14 can support plurilateral discussions, said people familiar with the development. The US suggestions on the continuation of plurilaterals were also echoed by the facilitator in his report, a move that would legitimize the controversial Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs) such as the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) by incorporating them into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement dealing with plurilateral agreements, said people familiar with the development. CHALLENGING DG’S PROCESS Brazil, one of the first countries to intervene at the TNC meeting, appears to have thanked the chairs of the different WTO negotiating bodies for presenting their reports but cautioned that these reports by the chairs would contain elements of subjectivity, said people familiar with the development. What happens in the negotiating bodies is for members to decide, Brazil said, suggesting that it is for the ministers to decide on these reports as well as what needs to be addressed, said people familiar with the development. Brazil said that it cannot expect or accept a situation where on agriculture the ministerial conference simply takes note of what is happening, adding that such a scenario is not acceptable to Brazil. In effect, Brazil seems to have questioned the undue reliance on the chairs’ reports, said people familiar with the development. Citing a document from 4 February 2002, Bangladesh told the DG that it is not the chair of the TNC that sets the agenda for the ministerial conference, but the General Council, which takes the final call, said people familiar with the development. In an apparent response to Bangladesh’s statement, the DG said, “I want to emphasize – as always – that this is a Member-driven organization. I am not a Member; ultimately, decisions rest with you.” The DG continued: “But before every Ministerial Conference, Members urge us to narrow the agenda and avoid a “Christmas tree”, yet we often end up exceeding that intention.” However, the DG’s statement seemed factually inaccurate on grounds that a concerted effort has been made by the WTO’s leadership behind closed doors to severely prune the agenda by deciding which issues should be forwarded to ministers at MC14, said people who took part in the meeting. India made a long intervention raising a host of problems with the preparatory process for MC14 as well as how substantive issues are being undermined. India called for text-based negotiations on agriculture without which it will be difficult to proceed on any other issue, said people familiar with the development. India made it clear that the Yaounde ministerial conference cannot simply take note of what happened, as it has to go into detail as to what happened with regards to the past ministerial mandates, said people familiar with the development. Indonesia also called for text-based negotiations on agriculture while emphasizing outcomes on the mandated issues, said people familiar with the development. However, the DG ruled out any text-based negotiations as demanded by India and Indonesia. The DG said: “Both India and Indonesia made a point to have text-based negotiations. But it is very unlikely, from what I am hearing, that we could have a text now that we can send for text-based negotiations to Ministers.” DG’S CONCLUDING REMARKS In response to comments from around 60 members, “one of the highest for a TNC meeting,” the DG acknowledged that “while there were divergences, there was also meaningful advice on the way forward in response to my first question.” The DG’s concluding remarks, contained in a restricted document (Job/TNC/132) of 12 December, seen by the SUNS, stated: “the second question likewise prompted specific views from Members, alongside broader scene- setting reflections.” Commenting “on the approach”, the DG said “what came through clearly is that Members continue to value the “Geneva First” principle and want a realistic path toward the Ministerial Conference.” According to the DG, “there is a shared view that Ministers should not be overburdened with an overly broad agenda – the so-called “Christmas tree” approach – which would distract from a focused, ministerial-level set of decisions.” The DG noted that “many of you advised realism in what we send to Ministers, and in what Ministers can reasonably deliver,” while “at the same time, there was a call for a balanced package that reflects the interests of all Members, as well as for transparency and inclusivity throughout the process.” In the same breath, the DG also said that she “heard that although we may make decisions on how to proceed, we should avoid fully closing the door, allowing space for additional work after the General Council that could still feed into the Ministerial Conference. These were the key messages on our approach.” In response to several concerns raised about the manner in which the process was conducted, the DG said “the aim is not to restrict Members’ contributions but to maintain a focused set of issues that enables Ministers to use their time effectively.” Even as several members appear to have disapproved of the process, the DG said: “The message I heard is strive for a more focused set of items to transmit to Ministers but don’t prematurely close the window. I am aware that some Members are uncomfortable with the term “convergence” and question what it implies.” According to the DG, “there seems to be support for certain elements that could be put forward”. They include: a. “CTE SS and Doha special session on trade-related aspects of intellectual property: On CTE SS and TRIPS SS, the Chairs made clear that there is nothing they have to recommend for Ministers to consider or negotiate at MC14. At the same time, we heard from the TRIPS SS Chair that he has continued informal contacts with interested stakeholders to assess existing interest in GI Register negotiations – with these exchanges suggesting that the matter may be regaining some attention among certain producer groups. b. Services negotiations: With regard to the services negotiations, the Chair also made it clear that there is nothing to recommend for Ministers to consider or negotiate at MC14. We heard from the Chair’s report that Members have discussed how to respond to Ministers’ call at MC13 to reinvigorate work. c. G90 proposals: There seems to be a strong element of support that the process-based approach in the draft G90 Decision tabled for the GC is one that seems acceptable to many Members – that is, that proposals will be sent to the relevant technical Committees. This is something that we can send forward to the GC. The papers have been tabled for the GC’s decision with regard to SPS and TBT and taking note of progress in the discussion of the TRIPS Article 66.2 proposal. d. Fisheries subsidies: It is clear that many support the goal for ratification by all 166 Members by MC14. With respect to the negotiations on the Additional Provisions, it is clear that no negotiated substantive outcome on additional provisions are expected for Ministerial action at MC14. So, there is a recognition that we do not have the negotiating document to take forward to MC14. That said, I heard many say that political support from Ministers or their reaffirmation that officials continue work post MC14 would send an important signal. e. Agriculture: This area is more complex. There is a clear amount of interest from almost all Members. What I heard from all Members is that at present there is no universally accepted text for negotiations. Both India and Indonesia made a point to have text-based negotiations. But it is very unlikely, from what I am hearing, that we could have a text now that we can send for text-based negotiations to Ministers. However, there are seven submissions on the table on agriculture that provide a lot of hope that there could be work done to come up with a document. Many Members referred to the Jamaican proposal as one possible basis to work with. There are others such as on cotton, the Brazilian proposal, the African proposal and LDC proposal and others, from which you can draw to see if, with the CoA SS Chair, you can come up with something that could be sent forward to Ministers. It is up to Members to work on that. At the same time, I have not heard anyone say that any one of the submissions is ready. But you are willing to work on something that could possibly go to Ministers. I do not know the form it would take at this point in time. I will leave that up to you and the CoA SS Chair to try to work on this. At the minimum, many Members have said that something is needed. That there has to be some focus on agriculture given the importance of this area. We will work on that. The message has been heard. f. Other areas: There were other requests more on things that belong to the GC and you will discuss next week that I will not go into here on other types of deliverables that could be potentially possible to send to the Ministerial Conference.” In short, the DG said that she has “some tangible things to send forward,” while “others we need to leave a little bit more open for a little bit more work.” “I see that in spite of all the things said, we are coming and narrowing a bit the gap on what we intend to send to Ministers at least from the perspective of the TNC,” the DG concluded. “This is what I am going to try and deliver at the GC and urge the General Council to endorse in my report.” Revised Recommendations by the TNC Chairperson for General Council Endorsement: Agriculture*: No negotiated broad substantive outcome on agriculture is expected for Ministerial action at MC14. * Members must recognize that the submissions currently on the table represent the full set of texts to be considered in January. The primary task for Members, under the leadership of the CoA SS Chair after the winter break, is to narrow these texts with the aim of completing this work in Geneva and presenting Ministers in Yaounde with a single, consolidated text on agriculture. Failing this, Members should consider sharing their proposals with Ministers as a declaration from them or their group for information. The CoA SS Chair’s updated report will be placed before Ministers through the TNC’s report to Ministers through the General Council. CTD (Committee on Trade and Development) Special Session: The GC should consider the proposed draft GC Decision by the G90 (WT/GC/W/974 – TN/C/W/92 – JOB/TN/CTD/19) and take note of progress in discussion of TRIPS Article 66.2 proposal. Given the current state of play, the other ASPs [Agreement-specific proposals] are not expected to be delivered to Ministers for action at MC14. That said, work in the CTD SS on the ASPs will continue after MC14. The CTD SS Chair’s updated progress report should be placed before Ministers through the TNC report. Services: No negotiated substantive outcome on trade in services is expected for Ministerial action at MC14. Work should continue in the CTS SS, including in line with the ministerial instruction from Abu Dhabi. The CTS SS Chair’s updated progress report should be placed before Ministers through the TNC report to Ministers through the General Council. +
|
||
