Chair’s draft pushes WTO farm talks deadlines back to next conference

PREVIOUS STORY
‘Mission impossible’ and ‘mission essential’ collide in WTO farm talks

SEE ALSO
WTO ministers’ meeting — no interaction, no movement, just speeches
Texts: state of play in WTO farm talks and the crisis-meeting invitation
and all stories on this topic (tagged “food stockholding”)

---

UPDATE: The draft prepared for the February 26–29, 2024 Ministerial Conference was circulated on February 16. It still pushed the deadlines back to the next conference, but with options throughout: members “shall” agree by then or they “agree to work towards” the target.

The deadlock remained over whether price support in food security stockpiling (PSH) should be a stand-alone decision at this conference or resolved with all the other topics by the next one.

See the full update below

---

Posted by Peter Ungphakorn
FEBRUARY 5, 2024 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 18, 2024

World Trade Organization agriculture negotiators are spending the first two weeks of February scrutinising a draft text for the WTO’s upcoming Ministerial Conference.

In a meeting on January 30, 2024 they accepted the draft as the document to work on for the February 26–29 conference in Abu Dhabi — the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference, called “MC13” by insiders.

It was prepared by the talks’ chair, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Türkiye.

The 5-page draft is detailed, but for most issues it postpones any resolution until the Ministerial Conference after Abu Dhabi — “MC14” — normally within two years.

However, one issue still threatens to sink the whole effort. This is about finding a long-term solution for the present short term fix for over-the-limit subsidies used to buy into food security stocks (explained here).

Members disagree on whether this should be a single-issue decision or part of a package covering the whole of domestic support. (More below.)

A WTO website news story summarises its content in detail.

Sceptics delay proposal for more WTO documents to be made public

See also
WTO reform: 39 members call for more information to be made public
How wide should the WTO window be set? 2 External transparency

---

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED DECEMBER 15, 2023 | UPDATED DECEMBER 15, 2023

India, China and Antigua and Barbuda told the last meeting of the year of the World Trade Organization’s General Council on December 14, 2023, that they needed more time to discuss a proposal for more public transparency with WTO documents, effectively kicking the issue down the road.

The proposal has been resubmitted adding the US as a new sponsor — the US was already calling for meeting agendas to be made public as long ago as July 1998. (The updated text is below. The original version is from July.)

The 39 sponsors — Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EU (and its 27 members), New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK and the US — want many important documents to be released to the public immediately, or faster than at present, some of them currently never made public.

We see no compelling reason why these must be kept restricted as they are formal statements explaining the state of our work
— the proposal’s sponsors, comment A2

They include meeting agendas and notes added to the agenda headings, and a wide range of reports by the WTO Secretariat — “We see no reason why [normal] official documents prepared by the Secretariat should ever be restricted”.

They also include documents that a member may want to be released related to its own individual commitments to open up their markets, currently always secret. These are officially called “schedules” of commitments.

WTO ministers’ meeting — no interaction, no movement, just speeches

SEE ALSO
Ministers preparing for WTO crisis meeting told they need to compromise and
Texts: state of play in WTO farm talks and the crisis-meeting invitation

---

Posted by Peter Ungphakorn
DECEMBER 1, 2023 | UPDATED DECEMBER 5, 2023

The supposed “crisis” meeting of about 25 World Trade Organization ministers on November 28, 2023 showed no sign of breaking the deadlock in the WTO agriculture negotiations.

With barely two working months to go members now face the real risk of no outcome at all on agriculture at the February 2024 Ministerial Conference.

According to sources, the three-hour online meeting consisted only of a series of prepared statements echoing what delegations have been saying in the negotiations. No minister made any attempt even to edge towards compromise, even though they had been urged to do so before the meeting.

Nor did the chair attempt to encourage a dialogue, or to explore possible compromises. The presiding minister was UAE Foreign Trade Minister Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, who will chair the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference.

WTO reform: 39 members call for more information to be made public

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JULY 31, 2023 | UPDATED DECEMBER 15, 2023

The last General Council meeting before the 2023 summer break at the World Trade Organization (WTO), on July 24 and 25, received several documents on WTO reform. Some of them deal with public information and transparency — including making more documents available to the public, and quicker — and deserve more attention.

(Jump to the section on the proposal about derestricting documents, including the full text)

Why is this important? Here’s an example.

One of the most recent developments in the WTO is agreement on an almost-final text among participants negotiating new rules on investment. The deal would streamline investment procedures for the benefit of developing countries — Investment Facilitation for Development.

Ask anyone involved or with privileged information and they will speak glowingly about how useful this is going to be, such as in this session of the WTO Public Forum on September 15, 2023, or this article by ex-WTO Deputy Director-General Alan Wolff.

But the world at large has to take their word for it because the text is still secret. Ask “Why is it secret?” and the answer is “because it’s not completely final”.

The world at large has to take their word for it because the text is still secret

WTO members are slow to ratify the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement

IN A NUTSHELL
Ratifications of the June 2022 Fisheries Subsidies Agreement
May 13, 2024

Total ratifications = 74
(= 45% of all members, = 67% of the first target)
First target (two thirds of 164 members) = 110
Additional ratifications needed to reach two thirds = 36
Eventual target (agreement applies to all members) = 164 members (or 163 ratifications*)

● The agreement takes effect after two thirds of the membership have ratified (“accepted”) it. Even then it only applies to the countries that have ratified
● The WTO’s up-to-date list of ratifications is here

* So long as the EU’s ratifications count as 27 (the number of EU member states) instead of 28 (member states + EU itself, also a WTO member), total ratifications cannot exceed 163

---

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 7, 2023 | UPDATED MAY 13, 2024

June 17, 2023 is already buried in the distant the past. That was the first anniversary of WTO members agreeing by consensus to curb fisheries subsidies. It was also the original target for enough countries to ratify it so that deal could take effect.

That target was then moved to the February 26–29, 2024 Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi. When that was going to be missed by a substantial shortfall, the deadline was quietly dropped.

Instead the Ministerial Conference was turned into a celebration of the ratifications that had been submitted, including nine at the conference. That brought the total to 70, still 40 short of the 110 needed to activate the agreement in ratifying countries.

It may take many more months, if not a year or two, to reach 110 — two thirds of the membership. Even then 53 countries will still have not ratified the agreement, meaning it will not apply to them. (Ignoring the likelihood that by then the WTO is likely to have at least two more members.)

COUNTRIES THAT STILL HAVE NOT RATIFIED THE 2022 AGREEMENT
MAY 13, 2024

Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India*, Indonesia*, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico*, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco*, Mozambique, Myanmar*, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, North Macedonia, Oman*, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand*, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam*, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe (89)

* In the top 20 fishing nations by catch size (FAO data)

‘Sriracha’ sauce: is it what it says on the bottle?

Image: Si Racha coast; sauces from left: Sriraja Panich, Huy Fong/Rooster, Flying Goose, Three Mountains, Exotic Food (USA style)

---

Sriracha

— Jay Rayner (@jayrayner1) September 26, 2020

---

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED MAY 29, 2023 | UPDATED JULY 2, 2023

Parts on the history of Sriracha sauce have been revised considerably (May 31, 2023) following further research into Thai-language material

Fancy a Japanese seafood omelette with “mayo spun through with sriracha”? Smoked cod head “doused in a sriracha emulsion”? How about McDonald’s sriracha-and-kale burger, described as “an aging hipster’s cry for help”? Or just sausages and brown sauce mixed with sriracha in proportions of 5:1.

Sriracha is gaining popularity among chefs and people who just enjoy their food. But what exactly is it?

First, you may have noticed that “Trade β Blog” is about trade. So this piece is not about the joys of eating or cooking with the distinctive chilli sauce. It’s about a controversial issue in trade: the use of a geographical name to identify a product. But it does include some blind tasting in the search for authenticity.

Why it’s a mistake to talk about a ‘Swiss-style’ post-Brexit UK-EU deal

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED NOVEMBER 21, 2022 | UPDATED DECEMBER 5, 2022

Maybe it was because someone thought it would be a good idea to stick a label on where UK-EU relations might be heading now that the atmosphere between the two is widely reported to have improved. Or perhaps it was just because people were bored while waiting for the football World Cup to start.

Whatever the reason, “Swiss-style ties with Brussels” suddenly became big news over the weekend after the Sunday Times reported (November 20, 2022, paywalled, but some more detail here) that the British government is considering exactly that.

Reactions ranged from “Doubt it. EU hates its relationship with Switzerland & Switzerland hates its relationship with EU” (Mujtaba Rahman, here), to “when someone says ‘Swiss-style’ relationship, rather than hearing ‘a slightly better relationship [than] now’ everyone is like ‘LET ME GET MY NOTES’” (Sam Lowe, here).

The problem here is that “Swiss-style” is being used as shorthand. It’s a label, but one that’s misleading and not really explained. Both of the reactions above are valid, at least to some extent, but they are talking about different things.

WTO agriculture negotiators face challenge of thinking outside the box(es)

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED OCTOBER 23, 2022 | UPDATED OCTOBER 24, 2022

See also the report on the retreat (published October 26, 2022):
WTO agriculture retreat said strong on context but weak on give-and-take

Brain-storming. Blue sky thinking. Wiping the slate clean. Thinking outside the box. Pick your cliché. World Trade Organization (WTO) members’ ambassadors and agriculture attachés go on a “retreat” tomorrow (October 24) as they try to discover solutions where none have been found for over a decade.

The common impression is that the WTO agriculture negotiations have achieved nothing since they started almost a quarter of a century ago in 2000.

This is partly because after just over a year (in 2001), the talks were rolled into the newly launched and broader Doha Round of WTO negotiations. And now the Doha Round is widely considered to be dead.

Officially the position is more complicated. Some members say the Doha Round is over. Others say the original mandate continues — they refuse to endorse the end of the round.

In practice some parts of the Doha Round have been concluded, such as the Trade Facilitation and Fisheries Subsidies agreements. Other parts are in limbo or the talks have dried up, at least among the full membership. What has faded away is the idea of the talks as one unified package or “single undertaking”.

(An aside here. What almost no one has noticed is that the Trade Negotiations Committee of the WTO membership — with the director-general ex officio in the chair — still meets. This committee was set up specifically within the Doha Round. If the round has ended so should the Trade Negotiations Committee. That would also mean the director-general has no official position in any council or committee of the WTO membership.)

UPDATES: expanding the WTO intellectual property waiver for COVID-19

---

If you are following this blog, please note that
WordPress does not send out alerts for updates, only for new posts.
To see updates, follow me on Twitter or Mastodon or check back here periodically.

---

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED OCTOBER 4, 2022 | UPDATED AS INDICATED

The waiver on patent protection for COVID-19 vaccines was agreed at the WTO Ministerial Conference on June 17, 2022. The text with brief explanations is here. The waiver is not an obligation. Countries can choose to suspend certain patent rights if they want.

Much of the work after the Ministerial Conference results from a provision for WTO members to decide within six months (by December 17, 2022) whether or not to expand the waiver to include COVID-19 tests and treatments:

“No later than six months from the date of this Decision, Members will decide on its extension to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics”

Background: The original (revised) proposal; the debate; the proposed compromise and analysis.

Updates on the latest developments will be added here, with links to new documents and news items. That will include any notifications from countries changing their laws to apply the waiver. So far there are none.

Key events

• October 31, 2023 — deadlock continues in the intellectual property council after an information session with stakeholders
• October 23–24, 2023 — discussed by capital-based senior officials: positions are unchanged
• March and May, 2023 — discussed in the General Council but no new deadline set
• December 20, 2022 — the General Council agrees on postponing the deadline with no date set, but to be reconsidered in the Spring
• December 19, 2022 — the General Council postpones a decision on postponing the deadline
• December 17, 2022 — deadline for expansion decision missed, so far no country has moved to use the vaccine patent waiver agreed in June
• December 16, 2022 — formal meeting: chair’s draft binned, replaced by short paragraph postponing the deadline
• December 7, 2022 — chair’s draft factual report circulated
• December 6, 2022 — informal meeting discusses proponents’ draft and postponing deadline
• December 5–6, 2022 — US announces it will need time to consult stakeholders
• November 2, 2022 — informal meeting, with members’ positions on expanding the waiver to tests and treatments crystallised into three groups
• July 6, 2022 — first meeting after the vaccine patent waiver decision, followed by stock-taking and informal meetings

(TRIPS = trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, the official description of intellectual property issues that are discussed in the WTO — they should be “trade-related” issues)

If Americans are confused about Gruyère cheese, blame the French

It’s war: don’t talk about geographical indications

---

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JANUARY 13, 2022 | UPDATED JULY 11, 2023

“If you’re new to trade and want to know how to start a brawl between trade people — Simon has the answer.”

That tweet, accompanied by a riotously animated GIF of a bar fight, came from Greg Messenger, associate professor at Bristol University Law School.

“Simon” is another trade law guru, Simon Lester, whose CV includes a stint in the WTO Appellate Body Secretariat.

Let’s keep up the erosion & make all cheese terms generic!

— Simon Lester

“GI Simon,” punned a third trade law guru Holger Hestermeyer of The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.

Lester had tweeted the outcome of a court case as reported on NBC News: “decades of importation, production, and sale of cheese labeled GRUYERE produced outside the Gruyère region of Switzerland and France have eroded the meaning of that term and rendered it generic.”

That quote already contains a lot that is inflammatory in trade. Lester added a couple of gallons (US, of course, 3.785411784 litres each) of gasoline to the flames: “Let’s keep up the erosion & make all cheese terms generic!”