WTO Farm Talks Stalled by Single Undertaking

A concept note issued ahead of the proposed workshop on the way forward in the World Trade Agriculture negotiations on July 2-3 acknowledges for the first time that the lack of progress in agriculture talks is due to “jettisoning of the single undertaking approach in the Doha negotiations in 2011.”

The three-page concept note, titled “Rebuilding trust and progress to address contemporary challenges,” blames the stalled talks on the: “Difficulties in finding balances and trade-offs after the jettisoning of the single undertaking approach in the Doha negotiations in 2011, and the subsequent acknowledgment of differences on the agreed Doha negotiations framework and architecture as resulting from the Bali and Nairobi Decisions.”

To recall, the chairman's concluding statement issued at the end of the WTO's eighth ministerial meeting held in Geneva, in December 2011, emphasized that “ministers commit to advance negotiations, where progress can be achieved, including focusing on the elements of the Doha Declaration that allow Members to reach provisional or definitive agreements based on consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single undertaking.”

The same concluding statement also contained a paragraph that says: “Ministers also stress that they will intensify their efforts to look into ways that may allow Members to overcome the most critical and fundamental stalemates in the areas (agriculture) where multilateral convergence has proven to be especially challenging.”

Focus on Trade Facilitation

At that meeting in Geneva, several industrialized countries, particularly the United States and

the European Union sought to bring negotiations on trade facilitation to the center stage while giving a short shrift to overall balance in the Doha negotiations, said several people who asked not to be quoted.

Following the Geneva meeting and despite initial objections by several countries, including some South American countries, the focus of the negotiations was shifted to trade facilitation at the cost of negotiations in other areas, including agriculture, said people who preferred not to be quoted.

To bring overall balance in the negotiations, India, South Africa and a few other developing countries raised the issue of public stockholding programs for food security in the run-up to the WTO's ninth ministerial meeting in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013, said a former trade envoy who asked not to be identified.

It is an open secret that after securing the trade facilitation agreement at MC9, the United States, and other industrialized countries stymied progress in agriculture and other areas and went on to spike the Doha negotiations at MC10 in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, the trade envoy said.

Concept Note

The concept note, seen by our correspondent, states that “while the WTO agriculture negotiations started in 2000 pursuant to Article 20 of the AoA, Members have been able to adopt only a few multilateral outcomes, notably those at the 2013 Bali Ministerial Conference and the 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Conference.”

According to the note, “Members could not agree on an outcome on agriculture at the 11th Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference in December 2017, at the 12th Geneva Ministerial Conference in June 2022 (partially compensated by the adoption of a “food security” package[1]), or at the 13th Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference in February 2024.”

It says “the persisting stalemate” in the agriculture negotiations is due to three factors:

1. “Continued divergences on how to establish priorities to address current and future challenges faced by the food and agricultural sector domestically and globally, and on the actual impacts of various policy measures that would shape future disciplines.”
2. “Difficulties in finding balances and trade-offs after the jettisoning of the single undertaking approach in the Doha negotiations in 2011, and the subsequent acknowledgment of differences on the agreed Doha negotiations framework and architecture as resulting from the Bali and Nairobi Decisions.”
3. "Divergences in the assessments made, including by academics and experts on how some challenges, including food security, climate change and environmental sustainability, could be better addressed by existing WTO disciplines and how these maybe strengthened in the future taking into account past mandates and internal trade-offs. While there is general agreement among Members to address food security, rural development and environmental challenges, particularly climate change, there is mistrust that such policies can eventually be used as disguised restrictions on trade.”

According to the note, “it would be useful to inject some fresh thinking into the negotiation process to explore how the persisting stalemate in the agriculture negotiations can be broken in support of the CoA-SS Chair-led process.”

Delving into the “objective and rationale,” the note says “the goal of this proposed workshop is to contribute to overcoming the negotiating deadlock on food and agriculture at the WTO.”

“It will do so by providing a forum for external experts and WTO Members' representatives to consider the underlying causes of the stalemate in the agriculture negotiations and think strategically about possible changes of perspectives or processes that could result in an efficient and results-oriented process at the WTO,” the note emphasized.

Further, it suggested the need to address the following themes at the workshop:

1. How can multilateral trade rules support efforts to better address food security and poverty alleviation in light of past experiences and updated evidence, in particular, whether the current WTO rules are adequate or should be supplemented by new disciplines;
2. Taking into account the symbiotic relationship between climate change and other environmental challenges and the agriculture and food sector, as well as the opportunities offered by digitalization and the need to prevent trade and production distortions, which approaches may be regarded as optimal to enhance agricultural production and productivity sustainably?
3. What could be the possible trade-offs reflecting Members' priorities, while also addressing contemporary challenges? Is the current structure of the Agreement on Agriculture, including the classification of subsidies into boxes depending on their perceived impacts fit for purpose? Is the current negotiating structure still apposite? Are new approaches, both on substance and on the negotiating process, needed?

Workshop
More importantly, the workshop is expected “to result in some operational suggestions on how

trust could be rebuilt and on how to create a more conducive environment for progress to be made in the agriculture negotiations with a view to reaching a successful outcome at the 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) and beyond.”

Aside from organizational details, the program for the workshop" will be composed around four half-day sessions. Each session would last 3 hours.

According to the note, the first 3 sessions would be dedicated to the following topics:

• How can multilateral trade rules support efforts to better address food security and poverty alleviation in light of past experiences and future challenges?
• What are optimal approaches to ensure that food and agricultural production and trade are sustainable, taking into particular account the symbiotic relationship between climate change and the food and agriculture sector, while also minimizing trade and production distortions in an equitable manner?
• Thinking outside the boxes: Exploring new avenues for possible trade-offs; considering whether the structure and underlying concepts of the AoA are still fit for purpose; considering whether the current structure of the negotiations is still apposite and which adjustments could be envisaged.

It says that “each session will be facilitated by an external expert, with a panel composed of four speakers.”

“The last session will be composed of a roundtable with a representative group of Members who will share their views on their key take aways and possible way forward, to be followed by an exchange with all participating Members and experts,” the note said.