Decision Making Review Report

The GC chair has issued a report on what transpired at the one-day retreat he convened last week primarily to discuss the decision-making processes at the WTO.  In his report, the chair says that he “detected a collective desire to enhance decision-making. processes in Geneva, build and restore trust, uphold consensus decision making in a manner that delivers results and ensure the WTO remains fit for purpose.”

The report titled, “Takeaways And Follow-up Suggestions From the 8 July Retreat on WTO Decision Making and Way Forward” (Job/GC/402), covers several issues concerning transparency, inclusion and decision making processes at WTO.

The report makes several suggestions, including on the “consensus: understanding and implementation”, “transparency” and “improving the consensus mechanisms”. The report says “the concept of consensus was discussed extensively, with a focus on distinguishing it from unanimity” and “consensus should not be (mis)used as a tool for vetoing but rather as a means to build convergence and foster genuine agreement.”

Under the heading of transparency, the report suggests that “Members that cannot join consensus should explain their reasons in a straightforward and transparent manner. This could help address misunderstandings and provide opportunities for dialogue to find a practical and workable way forward.”

As regards “improving the consensus mechanisms,” the report says “There were discussions on how existing tools could be utilized more effectively to foster consensus decision making. These tools include, but are not limited to, the application of footnotes, exemptions, opt-out and sunset clauses – to help Members navigate when deadlocks arise. In this context, the notion of «responsible consensus» was also mentioned in some interventions, calling on Members to use their right to object judiciously.”

Under the heading of “specific follow-up suggestions”, the report suggested “specific actions.” They include:

Transparency and inclusivity principles for informal, small group processes: Drawing on past experience, we could ask the Secretariat to formulate guidance for the effective operation of small groups, including green room meetings, to ensure transparency and inclusivity.

I. To ensure transparency, the following could be considered: live streaming when possible; listening-in rooms; information notes; informal plenary meetings to report on state-of-play; ad hoc briefing sessions for Members by Secretariat (especially during Ministerial Conferences).

ii. To ensure inclusivity and address capacity challenges, the following could be considered: ‘reasonable representation of all interests’-approach («burden sharing»); enhanced role of group and regional coordinators as appropriate; potentially topic- specific or ‘reasonably representative interest’ groups.

Call a spade a spade:

• Not all small meetings convened by the Director-General, the GC Chairperson or the MC Chairperson are automatically Green Room meetings.
• Not all small meetings convened during Ministerial Conferences, or in the run-up to Ministerial Conferences, are automatically Green Room meetings.
• Small group meetings are often also convened by a Member - or a group of Members, these should also not be mistaken for Green Room meetings/processes.

Seek workable forward-looking solutions:

• The use of footnotes, exemptions opt out and sunset clauses to help navigate around obstacles and impasses.
• Improving the utility of GC meetings:Instead of five regular GC meetings, retain four regular GC meetings (quarterly) to ensure the necessary space to take administrative and substantive action/decisions.
• In addition to these regular meetings, convene, as necessary, 1-2 thematic/dedicated informal GC/HoDs (heads of delegations) meetings, including in the retreat format, to address key issues in an honest and in-depth manner, including to prepare for MCs. This could help carry substantive discussions forward, improve the understanding of each other’s positions and interests, as well as, in the context of Ministerial Conferences, reduce last-minute decision making or overloading of the MC/Ministerial agenda.
• Senior Officials’ Meetings (SOMs) were also mentioned as a possible tool in this context.
•  Reaffirm role of Chairpersons: Chairpersons ought to keep everyone informed and all interests on board. Chairpersons need to steer focus on substance rather than process.
• In turn, Members need to afford their elected Chairpersons due trust and space to perform the role and function for which they have been elected.
• Enhance the role of the WTO Secretariat: To facilitate discussions, enhance the Secretariat’s role in providing expertise and analysis as a «neutral/impartial facilitator» serving Members’ needs and interests.
•  Engage stakeholders: Develop mechanisms to ensure that stakeholder involvement in Geneva is substantive and contributes positively to decision-making processes.
• !The power of «no» comes with accountability/responsibility: I detected clear calls for accountability when a Member exercises its right to object. When a Member is unable to join consensus, that Member should accompany its objection with relevant information – so as to provide proponents with an opportunity to engage with the objecting Member(s) and arrive at mutually acceptable and workable solutions. The idea is not to allow matters to drag on indefinitely but rather to arrive at mutually acceptable and workable solutions”.
• Several trade envoys said the report by the GC chair appears to confound the issues as there was significant opposition to any change in the consensus process, barring some select countries, including Norway, who seem determined to introduce new parameters for the decision-making process, including the controversial idea of responsible consensus.

In a restricted “unofficial room document” (RD/GC/33) issued on July 17, seen by WTD, it appears somewhat clear that there is considerable opposition to changing the consensus-based decision-making process to new ways of forcing decisions on members, said people familiar with the developments.

If anything, there is little appetite for “responsible consensus” as can been be gleaned from the feedbacks of the facilitators. It figured only once in the unofficial room document.

The six facilitators who covered the retreat in small groups include: by Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme (Botswana); Matthew Wilson (Barbados); Mazlizah PG Mahalee (Brunei Darussalam); Muhammadou Kah (The Gambia); Simon Manley (United Kingdom) and Sofia Boza Martínez (Chile).