South nations criticise trust deficit in agri outcomes at WTO

WTO. Samhitha Bhat. Creatice Commons.

Geneva, 25 Jan (D. Ravi Kanth) – Many developing countries on 24 January apparently strongly criticized the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta of Costa Rica, for creating unprecedented levels of “trust deficit”, expressing their disapproval of her draft agriculture text issued last year, said people familiar with the development.

At a meeting of the Doha agriculture negotiating body on 24 January, members from the African Group, the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group, India, Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 coalition of developing countries, and South Africa alleged that the chair has violated the core provisions contained in document TN/C/1 about how the chairs of the negotiating bodies in the Doha negotiations must discharge their duties, said people, preferring anonymity.

Raising the issue after 20 years since that document was issued, many developing countries said that they are alarmed about the manner in which the negotiating process is being conducted by the chair, who appears to have chosen to set aside all the rules contained in that document.

According to document TN/C/1 issued on 4 February 2002, norms were set for conducting the negotiations. They include:

1. Chairpersons should be impartial and objective, and discharge their duties in accordance with the mandate conferred on the TNC (Trade Negotiations Committee) by Ministers;

2. Chairpersons should ensure transparency and inclusiveness in decision-making and consultative processes taking into account the intergovernmental and Member-driven character of the WTO;

3. Chairpersons should aim to facilitate consensus among participants and should seek to evolve consensus texts through the negotiation process.

4. In their regular reporting to overseeing bodies, Chairpersons should reflect consensus, or where this is not possible, different positions on issues.

5. The General Council should ensure that suitable arrangements are made to promote continuity in the work of the TNC during the transition from the current to the next Director-General.

6. The Chairperson of the TNC should work in close cooperation with the Chairperson of the General Council and the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies.

At the meeting which was supposed to discuss the “way forward” in the Doha agriculture negotiations, many developing countries pointed to the chair’s alleged repeated failure to adhere to the principles laid out in document TN/C/1 issued on 4 February 2002.

The African Group and the ACP group specifically referred to that document at the meeting.

Apparently, India and Turkey asked the chair to address the issue of “trust deficit” before discussing the way forward in the negotiations.

India asked whether the negotiating process is a chair-led or members-led process, suggesting that they have not gotten any response, according to people present at the meeting who asked not to be quoted.

India said that it is not the time to look forward, suggesting that members are seriously concerned as to what has happened behind the scenes.

Indonesia also made a very sharp statement, saying that they cannot accept document TN/AG/50 (the chair’s report to the TNC containing the draft chair’s text on agriculture in an annex) as a basis for further negotiations unless it is thoroughly revised, said people familiar with the development.

As reported in SUNS #9467 dated 25 November 2021, the chair Ambassador Peralta has apparently shifted the goal posts due to her alleged “biased” position on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries.

In her revised report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 23 November 2021, the chair had urged the trade ministers to “consider revisiting” the mandated permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security (PSH) at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12), but to defer the outcome on PSH to the 13th ministerial conference (MC13).

Effectively, the chair appears to have permanently undermined the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries, despite demands for an outcome at MC12 by the G33 group of developing countries as well as the African Group, said people who asked not to be quoted.

The chair’s report covered seven main areas. They include: (1) agriculture domestic support; (2) market access; (3) export competition; (4) export restrictions; (5) cotton; (6) the special safeguard mechanism; and (7) public stockholding programs for food security, as well as the cross-cutting issue of transparency.

Yet, a cursory glance at the draft text suggests that the chair has put the issues of interest to the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, of which Costa Rica is an active member, such as domestic support, market access, and transparency provisions on a higher pedestal, as compared to PSH, the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries, and the long-pending cotton issue, said people familiar with the draft text.

The chair said the text “does not fully reflect their (members’) initial ambitions.”

Ambassador Peralta claimed that it is her “best attempt to put on the table a balanced and realistic package that could garner the support of all members for an outcome which all may be able to accept.”

The Costa Rican chair argued that she firmly believes that “this text would represent a significant step forward.”

The chair chose not to mention the Doha agriculture negotiations under which she is currently chairing the agriculture negotiating body.

She mentioned Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which was the basis for the Doha agriculture negotiations.

The chair sought to deflect attention from the Doha Round, which is by far the most important round of trade negotiations, including on agriculture, which was allegedly sabotaged by the United States.

The chair mentioned the UN Sustainable Development Goal No. 2 “on hunger, food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture.”

It is against this backdrop that India has apparently said that many proposals submitted by them were “nullified” by the chair, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Indonesia and the Philippines said the existing ministerial mandates cannot be reversed without prior ministerial approval, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Earlier, Brazil had said that the ministerial mandates can be changed (see SUNS #9495 dated 19 January 2022).

At the meeting on 24 January, Sri Lanka said it is not happy with the way the negotiations were being conducted so far, a concern that was also shared by Turkey, said people, who preferred not to be quoted.

These countries appear to have said that the text issued by Ambassador Peralta in document TN/AG/50 lacked credibility as it appears to have been overly tilted in favour of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, the United States, and the European Union, while denying mandated outcomes on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries and the special safeguard mechanism, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

Some members such as India and Indonesia expressed their unwillingness to treat the chair’s report (TN/AG/50) as a basis for any further discussions, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

CAIRNS GROUP MEMBERS DEFEND CHAIR’S REPORT

In what appeared to be an exercise at “finger pointing”, the Cairns Group members led by Australia and Brazil along with several other South American countries, as well as the US and the European Union, defended the chair on her report.

Brazil, which was the founder of the G20 group of developing countries on agriculture in 2003 and sought balanced changes in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, said the chair is not responsible for the current state of affairs in the agriculture negotiations.

It suggested that the blame falls on the members and not the chair, suggesting that it is the members who are not offering compromises and engaging in serious negotiations.

US and the EU, who did not show any energy on engaging in the negotiations and did not question the chair’s text, made some new nuanced statements that they would not like to focus on the text, suggesting that it is time for organizing meetings on the technical work, as there is no consensus on what members could do, said people who asked not to be quoted.

Canada and Costa Rica apparently called for more technical discussions, while Brazil along with some other countries called for a holistic discussion on food security – which includes PSH, and to which Brazil also included sustainability issues at the meeting.

The US, however, said it is interested in discussing the issues of market access and transparency.

Interestingly, the US had blocked the outcome on the permanent solution on PSH at the WTO’s eleventh ministerial conference (MC11) held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017. Since then the US seems to not have changed its position on the PSH issue.

In short, it appears that a group of countries seem determined to deny an outcome on the mandated issue of finalizing the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security.

GROWING “OPAQUENESS” AT THE WTO

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the WTO director-general’s alleged failure to share the recommendations of the McKinsey & Company report on bringing structural changes in the functioning of the WTO Secretariat, appears to have caused certain disquiet among members, SUNS has learned.

Last year, WTO DG Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala had informed members about commissioning McKinsey & Company to carry out a thorough review of the WTO Secretariat, to make recommendations for its reform.

Subsequently, she facilitated consultations between the representatives of McKinsey & Company and WTO members.

At the meeting of the WTO’s Committee on Budget, Finance, and Administration (CBFA) on 20 July 2021, the WTO deputy director-general Ms Angela Ellard informed members that McKinsey & Company will be submitting its report on the structural review of the WTO Secretariat in the first week of August that year.

Apparently, members were informed last year that the report would not go into the areas of members’ rights and obligations and will instead focus on the structural changes to be made to the Secretariat’s overall functioning so as to bring about greater efficiency and synergies, said people familiar with the deliberations.

During the meetings held by the representatives of McKinsey & Company, several members drove home the message that there has to be greater horizontal coordination in the functioning of the WTO committees.

Yet, the DG has still not circulated the findings of the report, even though it was submitted last year, said people, who asked not to be quoted.

- Third World Network