WTO Members for Consensus in Decision Making, No Dilution, Please

· Meeting Context: WTO reform meeting on 22 Sept 2026, led by facilitator Ambassador Katsuro Nagai, focused on decision-making changes.

· Consensus Principle: Opposition to altering consensus-based decision-making is growing stronger among members.

· Proposal by NZ, Norway, Singapore:

o Titled “Strengthening Inclusivity of Plurilateral Initiatives”.

o Aimed at helping developing and least-developed countries (LDCs) participate in plurilateral initiatives through resources and information platforms.

· Developing Countries’ Response:

o Rejected the idea that non-participation stems from lack of information.

o Stated opposition is due to disagreement with the substance of initiatives (e.g., E-Commerce Agreement).

o Raised concerns about neutrality of technical assistance, fearing proponents’ vested interests.

· Other Member Positions:

o US cautioned against duplication in plurilateral initiatives.

o Canada raised questions about the proposal.

· Process Concerns:

o Members criticized facilitator’s reliance on his own questions and short speaking slots.

o Insisted discussions must be based on members’ proposals, not facilitator’s metrics.

[ABS News Service/24.09.2026]

At a meeting on 22 September, 2026 on World Trade Organization reform, it became evident that opposition to changing the consensus principle of decision-making is hardening by the day, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

During the WTO reform meeting to discuss fundamental changes in decision-making – convened by the facilitator, Ambassador Katsuro Nagai – many members stated that discussions on the issue must be conducted on the basis of proposals submitted by members, rather than on the questions or matrix prepared by the facilitator, the person said.

Initially, members focused on a proposal submitted by New Zealand, Norway, and Singapore (WT/GC/REFORM/W/11) titled “Strengthening Inclusivity of Plurilateral Initiatives”.

The three countries, which are members of the Friends of the System group that propelled the reform discussions, stated that the underlying objective of their proposal “is to address the resource and capacity constraints faced by developing and LDC (least-developed country) Members and ensure that they have access and means to meaningfully participate in the various stages of negotiating, joining and implementing plurilateral initiatives.” The three proponents touted their ability to “provide meaningful support to developing Members and LDCs, so that they can better prepare to participate in plurilateral initiatives as soon as possible.”

The three countries noted that many LDCs that joined the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement did not join the E-Commerce Agreement, suggesting that their initiative “envisages the creation of a platform to enable developing and LDC Members to gain easy access to relevant information on the range of resources that are currently available to help them participate in plurilateral initiatives.”

Disagreement on Substance

In response to the proposal, several developing and least-developed countries stated that it is not a lack of understanding of the substance of the plurilateral initiatives, but rather a disagreement with the substance being projected by the proponents, an African trade official said.

Congo, an LDC in Africa, rejected the proposal on the grounds that their hesitation is not due to the analytics or substance underlying the plurilateral initiative, but rather their opposition to the very substance of the E-Commerce Agreement and other plurilateral initiatives, said an Asian trade official who asked not to be quoted.

“So the framing in the proposal that members do not join plurilaterals because there is an information gap is not correct,” the trade official said, adding that the mere provision of a portal or technical assistance would not resolve the problem.

The second issue raised by many members revolved around the neutrality of technical assistance provided to convince members, said another trade official, who suggested that if proponents provide such assistance, they are bound to have a material interest in advancing their own plurilateral initiatives.

Consequently, members formally raised the issue of the neutrality of the technical assistance suggested in this proposal.

The United States suggested that there should not be any duplication in pursuing plurilateral initiatives, while Canada is understood to have raised several questions regarding the proposal submitted by the three countries, said people familiar with the developments.

During the discussion on decision-making, members indicated that the two-minute time slot in the convening notice is too short, and they challenged the facilitator’s attempt to guide discussions based on his own questions, said people familiar with the discussions.

Many members conveyed their opposition to the questions framed by the facilitator, insisting that discussions must be held on the basis of members’ submissions.

“So, instead of engaging now with the metrics, it is better that we take out the proposals and engage directly with the members and allow them to respond to the questions and allow other members to ask more questions if they want,” said a member who asked not to be quoted.