WTO Agriculture
Negotiators Must Step Up Engagement for MC12, says
Chair
The Chair of the WTO agriculture negotiations,
Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta (Costa Rica), has told trade officials that
the consultations she has held with small groups of members have been
constructive but that negotiators must step up their engagement with one
another ahead of the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) at the end of
November. “I have been encouraged by the level of engagement by members,” she
said at a meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session on 14-15
October.
The Chair told members they must now sharpen their focus and start
to close the gaps in their positions so as to be able to present ministers with
a meaningful draft negotiating text to consider at MC12. She also told trade
officials that a successful result in the talks could help to contribute to
improving food security and supporting recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
"An outcome at MC12 would send a strong signal about WTO members'
willingness to put their differences behind them and work towards a common goal
of enhancing food security for all," she said.
At the meeting, which was open to all WTO members, the Chair
reported back on the small group meetings she had held over the last two weeks.
These were not for decision making, but rather to provide space and time for
in-depth discussion, she said.
The Chair told negotiators that many useful suggestions had been
made in the talks. They also now needed to choose between narrowing divergent
positions in the talks and revisiting their aspirations for the Conference.
“We are reaching the point where we have two choices: either we
find a way to reduce the remaining gaps, or we have to adjust the level of
ambition,” the Chair said. She told the meeting that the small group consultations
had been insightful and sometimes very lively.
At the meeting, trade officials welcomed the consultations as a
useful complement to the ongoing negotiations, with some of them highlighting
the importance of inclusiveness and transparency.
The Chair emphasised that the small
group consultations were aimed at collecting inputs to prepare for the
discussions in the Committee, which remained the core forum for the
negotiations. The Chair also informed members that she planned to
initiate a second round of consultations immediately. She encouraged them to
continue bringing "specific and constructive" textual suggestions to
the draft negotiation text to "collectively develop the most realistic
text and the best possible outcome".
The Chair said she would again report back on progress in the next
Committee meeting. She told the meeting that her ability to prepare a revised
draft negotiating text would depend on the progress and maturity of discussions
on each topic in the coming days.
Members exchanged views on four new negotiating submissions, made
by the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group, Lao PDR, and by Canada (one
on its own behalf, and another on behalf of a group of members).
The ACP submission (JOB/AG/218) highlights the vulnerability of
developing countries and least developed countries to the COVID-19 pandemic,
particularly in relation to agricultural trade and food security. It emphasised the need to give WTO members adequate space to
pursue policies through means such as public stockholding programmes
for food security purposes, and through the proposed new special safeguard
mechanism, which would allow developing countries to raise tariffs temporarily
in the event of import surges or price drops.
All members agreed on the urgency of addressing food security but
remained divided on some of the elements contained in the submissions,
reflecting long-standing divergences on topics such as public stockholding for
food security purposes or the special safeguard mechanism. Several members
welcomed the reference made by the ACP group to the importance of transparency
requirements regarding restrictions on the export of food and agricultural
goods.
The submission from Lao PDR (JOB/AG/220) proposes adding a chapeau
to the MC12 Ministerial Declaration or to the agricultural outcome package at
MC12 on the creation of a sub-group for negotiations on food security for
"food insecure and low-income developing members" (FILIDCs).
While members said they shared the concerns of Lao PDR on food security,
they queried whether there was a need to create a new sub-group, and asked what
the definition and legal status of the FILIDCs would be. Some members asked Lao
PDR to join the existing discussions on the mandated negotiation issues on
public stockholding and the special safeguard mechanism. Some also suggested
mainstreaming all discussions on food security in a broader, holistic approach.
Canada briefed members on its updated analytical tool for domestic
support (JOB/AG/219), which as of 1 September 2001 summarized the domestic
support notified to the WTO by 102 members between 2001 and 2020.
Many members welcomed Canada's contribution as a useful tool for
evidence-based negotiations, and supported Canada's suggestion that the WTO
Secretariat continue updating the document and publish it on the WTO website.
Trade officials discussed whether the analytical tool could benefit from the
inclusion of additional information, such as on the level of subsidies per
farmer. A few also emphasised that transparency would
be enhanced if members were to submit more timely and complete domestic support
notifications.
Canada reintroduced its submission on "Transparency in
applied tariff rate changes" (JOB/AG/212/Rev.1), adding the EU as
co-sponsor (alongside existing co-sponsors Australia, Brazil and Ukraine).
Canada reiterated that the revised proposal will not impose any additional
notification obligations and will only apply to changes in ordinary applied
tariffs and not to measures like trade remedies or changes arising from tariff
reclassification.
Some developing members expressed concern that developing
countries might face difficulties complying with the burden of notifications,
and that the proposal might entail possible unintended consequences, such as
import surges resulting from advance notices. Some members asked whether this
issue should be discussed at the Committee on Market Access, given that it
affects both agricultural and non-agricultural products.
The Chair noted that, during the small group consultations, some
members had proposed a "third way" approach (in addition to the two
options set out in the draft negotiating text). This would set out key
parameters and principles for post-MC12 negotiations, including product
coverage, safeguards, the legal form of a final agreement, and transparency.
At the dedicated session, both proponents and non-proponents
restated long-standing views on this topic. Although aiming for a permanent
solution on this question at MC12, several proponents indicated their
willingness to compromise and meet other members
mid-way. Non-proponents welcomed the positive gesture and some showed support
for the proposed third way approach. Several non-proponents also reiterated the
importance of basing future negotiations on evidence.
The Chair noted that strong divisions among proponents and
non-proponents still remained and urged both sides to engage actively with each
other on possible common ground for an outcome at MC12.
Reporting on her recent consultations, the Chair noted that
detailed discussions took place on the interim special safeguard mechanism
proposed by the African Group. Presented by the Group as an alternative to
their original proposal, the interim mechanism could be in force for at most
six to nine years with a flexible legal form and a transparent approach on the
product coverage. The linkages between the mechanism and market access were
repeatedly invoked by non-proponents, the Chair noted. She asked members to
assess the situation and advise on the way forward.
In the ensuing discussions, most proponents argued that an interim
special safeguard mechanism would allow developing members a trial period to
use this tool and test its effects. Several non-proponents supported the idea
that members could seek to agree on principles for a post-MC12 work programme on this topic, given the limited time remaining.
Despite expressing some reservations on how feasible it would be for members to
reach an outcome on the special safeguard mechanism at MC12, a few
non-proponents reaffirmed their commitment to engage in discussions with
proponents.
The Chair welcomed what she said was the spirit of compromise
shown by proponents and urged all members to deepen their engagement with one
another, with a view to reaching a satisfactory result at MC12.