Retreat on sustainable agri fails to bring about consensus

Agricultural resilience to drought, heat waves, elevated temperatures, flooding, extreme precipitation, and insect outbreaks is a must. Credit- Busani Bafana-IPS

Yerevan, 18 May (D. Ravi Kanth) — The much-touted two-day retreat on “Sustainable Agriculture in the Multilateral Trading System” that concluded on 6 May at the World Trade Organization seemingly failed to bring about any cohesive plan or consensus among members on how to address the issue of “sustainable agriculture” in the WTO, said people familiar with the discussions.

The United States is understood to have conveyed that Washington will not agree to any specific workstreams being generated out of the discussions on sustainable agriculture at the retreat, said people familiar with the discussions.

The WTO’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, appears to have concluded the retreat on a rather sombre note, saying that the issue of “technology” could help resolve the impasse in the agriculture negotiations, said people familiar with the discussions.

The two-day retreat (5-6 May) on “sustainable agriculture” seemingly witnessed a backlash against some of the ideas underlying the discussions on this issue, with the African Group and several developing countries having apparently viewed it as an attempt to undermine the provision of agricultural input subsidies under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), said people familiar with the discussions.

Several members appear to have also expressed sharp concerns over the experts chosen to brief the members, particularly from the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said people familiar with the development.

It appears that the DG chose the IFPRI to provide critical assessments on the way forward in agriculture, while members seemingly felt the ideas proposed by the IFPRI and others are not conducive to overcoming the impasse in the agriculture negotiations, said people familiar with the development.

BACKGROUND

In a restricted document (Job/GC/432) issued on 11 April, seen by the SUNS, the chair of the WTO’s General Council (GC), Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel of Saudi Arabia, framed the central issues for the retreat following his consultations with members on the Brazilian initiative on “sustainable agriculture in the multilateral trading system”.

According to the GC chair’s paper, the key takeaways from these consultations are as follows:

1. There is value in facilitating a dialogue that fosters a shared understanding of sustainable agriculture within the trade context and explore how the WTO can contribute. This open dialogue should allow Members to freely express their views, enhancing their understanding without restricting topics.

2. The conceptual framework of sustainable agriculture must encompass all three pillars of sustainable development – economic, environmental, and social. Discussions should take into account diverse local circumstances and policy priorities, cautioning against a one-size-fits-all approach.

3. It is essential to integrate contributions from external experts, including international organizations, regional bodies, think tanks, the private sector, and relevant stakeholders such as farmers, to establish a solid foundation, particularly in shaping the conceptual framework for sustainable agriculture.

4. Areas of interest highlighted included: food security, including affordability and availability of food, better nutrition, livelihood security, rural development, support for small-scale farmers in meeting sustainability standards, the critical role of technology transfer and innovation in adopting climate-smart agriculture, and the enhancement of productive capacity. The importance of cooperation, technical assistance, capacity building, and financing was also emphasized, along with resilience in supply chains and value addition. Members also underscored the role of regulatory frameworks and sustainability standards as well as SPS and TBT measures, with some stressing the impact of unilateral trade-related environmental measures (TREMs) and environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS).

5. Efforts on sustainable agriculture should complement, not distract from, the core negotiations in the Committee on Agriculture – Special Session (CoA-SS) and avoid duplication of work across WTO bodies.

6. The retreat should focus on actionable outcomes and be forward-looking, without prejudging specific results or potential workstreams – which should be discussed after the retreat.

The GC chair emphasized that the “retreat will offer a platform for open dialogue, experience sharing, collaborative problem-solving, and forward-thinking, starting with assessing the drivers and barriers to sustainable agriculture.”

DISCUSSIONS

The first day of the retreat, which focussed on the assessments of the external experts from IFPRI, OECD, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) seemed very disjointed, with no clear message on what is intended to be achieved, said people who attended the meeting.

Besides, there was little or no coherence in the assessments delivered by the external experts on how to address issues concerning sustainable agriculture in the context of the unaddressed issues in the Doha agriculture negotiations, said people who asked not to be quoted.

During the second session, which was attended only by Heads of Delegation (HoDs) on 6 May, two questions were posed for consideration.

The HoDs were asked to assess “(i) the drivers and barriers of sustainable agriculture to develop a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities ahead; and (ii) general actionable ideas for the WTO and identify concrete next steps for fostering further engagement on sustainable agriculture at the WTO.”

In effect, the GC chair asked members in the restricted document “what do they see in terms of the WTO’s possible contribution to this topic, in terms of multilateral rules and collaboration?” said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

Given the distribution of HoDs into four groups, it was difficult to assess the tone and tenor of the discussions in each group, the trade envoy said.

The African Group apparently said that they will not accept any new obligations arising out of the discussion on sustainable agriculture, as there is already a large outstanding agenda in the Doha agriculture negotiations that has to be addressed at this juncture, said an African participant, who asked not to be quoted.

Indonesia, the coordinator of the G33 group of developing countries, delivered a strong message against the notion of “sustainable agriculture”, saying that there is no common definition of what sustainable agriculture and sustainability would mean, said another participant, who asked not to be quoted.

Indonesia cast doubts on what the WTO can do or achieve on sustainable agriculture, the participant said.

The European Union, however, defended the notion of “sustainable agriculture” and the need for it in the current context of climate change.

The EU appears to have said even if the WTO is not an environmental organization, there are several areas under the current WTO framework that have a linkage with sustainability, said people familiar with the development.

The EU also appears to have cautioned that if nothing is done at the WTO, it does not mean that work in this area will stop, as national administrations will start taking actions and this may even have potential negative repercussions on some other members, said people familiar with the development.

According to Brussels, it would be better for members to address it multilaterally because there is value in collaboration here, said people familiar with the discussions.

Members from the Caribbean region seemed somewhat open to the discussions on sustainable agriculture, while expressing concern over the multiple standards, the cost of certification, lesser harmonization, and market access challenges, said people familiar with the discussions.

In effect, there were two extreme sets of views expressed on sustainable agriculture at the retreat, said people familiar with the discussions.

The US is understood to have said that it will not support any specific workstreams being generated out of the discussions on sustainable agriculture, said people familiar with the discussions.

In the concluding session, the DG seemingly highlighted the role of technology and how it could be a major driver for resolving the outstanding issues in agriculture, said people familiar with the discussions. - Thurs World Network