Sharp divisions marked an informal meeting convened by Brazil at the World Trade Organization to discuss the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, with one country saying that there is no legitimacy to the Brazilian informal process, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The informal meeting appears to have been embroiled over procedural issues, after India challenged the “legitimacy” of the process, said people familiar with the developments.
At the informal meeting on Tuesday, the differences between Brazil and India came into the open on the legitimacy of the process that allegedly runs parallel to the mandated negotiations in the regular Doha Special Sessions on agriculture.
India is understood to have said that 30 percent of the membership are not part of the discussions, and that the process allegedly lacked legitimacy, said people familiar with the developments.
In response, Brazil questioned the Indian claim centered on “legitimacy” saying that India is questioning the legitimacy of all the processes being conducted at WTO, said people who asked not to be quoted.
China strongly supported the Brazilian informal process on several grounds, insisting that the informal process has already been backed by many members. Aside from China’s support, members of the Cairns group of farm exporting countries as well as some South American members – Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador and Bolivia – of the G-33 group of developing countries continue to support the Brazilian process.
But within the 40-plus-member of the Group of 33 developing countries drawn from Asia, Africa and Caribbean regions, there is almost no support for the Brazilian proposal and many of the group’s members have hardly engaged in the discussions until now, said a G33 member, who asked not to be quoted.
Though Indonesia, the coordinator of the G33 group, did not make any statement in the informal meetings held by Brazil, it made the group’s position clear in the very first meeting on May 31, the member said.
According to that statement, Indonesia said “we maintain that all negotiations must be undertaken within the Committee on Agriculture Special Session (CoASS). In fact, this Committee was set up exactly for such a purpose.”
“This view is hardly exclusive to the G-33. This same message has been heard loud and clear from many other Members in previous deliberations. Most recently during the GC meeting last week,” Indonesia said.
While the G33 group “recognizes Members’ rights to convene informally to deliberate on any proposal,”... “however, we must not create a parallel negotiating process that potentially replaces, bypasses, and undermines the CoASS,” Indonesia said.
Against this backdrop, one thing that seems to have emerged during the discussions convened by Brazil on its proposal is that there is little or no consensus/appetite for the informal process on agriculture being conducted by Brazil outside the purview of special negotiating sessions on agriculture.
However, several industrialized countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as China, seem to be solid backers of the Brazilian informal process, said a developing country trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.
An agriculture analyst, who was a former negotiator, said while some industrialized countries like the United States approve the informal discussions on the Brazilian proposal, privately, they expect that nothing will come out of these discussions.
At the meeting on June 18, Brazil sought to discuss its proposal pertaining to public stockholding programs for food security. In its proposal (WT/GC/W/931) that was circulated on April 8, Brazil chose to delete the first option on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security, as contained in the revised 13th ministerial conference draft agriculture text.
In the draft revised text, two options were offered for trade ministers to consider in the green room meeting. The two options are:
“21. [Pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members adopt a permanent solution as set out in Annex [...] to this Decision.]
OR
However, Brazil removed the first option and instead proposed new language on the permanent solution on PSH in paragraph 19 of its proposal. Paragraph 19 states: “Pursuant to Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913), the General Council Decision (WT/L/939), and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in Dedicated Sessions of the CoA-SS. The negotiations on PSH should pay particular attention to the needs of LDCs and NFIDCs. A permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes shall be available to all developing country Members. Public stockholding programmes shall not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members. Members will agree on the elements and the methodology of implementation of the reform according to the Timeline of Implementation section below.”
As we reported earlier, in a “green room” meeting at MC13 attended by WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, India said if there is no permanent solution on PSH at MC13 as per the first option in the draft agriculture text (WT/MIN (24)/W/13), there wouldn’t be any outcome in agriculture.
The Brazilian proposal is unlikely to be accepted by the G33 members as a way forward for further progress in the agriculture negotiations, said a person familiar with the negotiations. Apparently, there were no substantive discussions on the Brazilian ideas on PSH at the informal meeting on June 18, and it remains to be seen how the discussions will continue in the coming days.
Brazil has cancelled a meeting it has scheduled for June 24, said people familiar with the discussions.
Timelines
In its draft decision, Brazil proposed the following timelines for implementation:
In order to achieve tangible progress and concrete outcomes, Members instruct the CoA-SS Chair to provide, based on Members’ contributions, annual negotiating schedules to discuss all aspects, including the elements and the methodology, of each of the negotiating topics in this Decision.
With little progress in the informal discussions, it remains to be seen what Brazil will propose for the General Council to consider during its meeting before the summer break, said people who asked not to be quoted.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here