Trade and environment – Trade β Blog

Scoring the Ministerial Conference results in the WTO director-general’s ‘half-full’ glass

Is it right to judge the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference by counting the decisions as if they each had equal significance? This is how we’d score the 10 that were agreed and some others that weren’t

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED APRIL 5, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 23, 2024

Judging by the WTO website’s coverage, the World Trade Organization’s Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference was a success, albeit a qualified one, at least in WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s assessments. Is this credible?

“Despite the more than challenging context, we concluded [the Ministerial Conference] with 10 consensus multilateral ministerial decisions and declarations,” she told ambassadors to the WTO on March 21. “That’s why I personally see the glass as half full.”

We, however, conclude that the glass is quite a lot less than half full.

Despite the more than challenging context, we concluded … with 10 consensus multilateral ministerial decisions and declarations. That’s why I personally see the glass as half full
— Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala

We looked closely at what was agreed in Abu Dhabi and what wasn’t, and we scored each issue. The results are below, a bit like the scorecards we produced after the last Ministerial Conference in Geneva in 2022, but slightly different.

And we believe over-selling the result may be unhelpful because it may encourage complacency. Members can and should do better. And they should start working on that now.

What next? Seven talking points after the WTO’s 2024 Ministerial Conference

Lots to think about as WTO delegations pick up the pieces from Abu Dhabi and look ahead to the next conference in two years’ time and beyond

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED MARCH 13, 2024 | UPDATED MARCH 20, 2024

We’ve deliberately taken our time. The World Trade Organization’s 2024 Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi ended almost two weeks ago, after deadlock forced it to be extended by over a day, into the early hours of March 2.

Before the conference we had warned against expecting too much. We had argued that what was going to be essential was to preserve the system. Most issues were not ripe, and the geopolitical situation meant political energy was elsewhere.

Not to cause any harm seemed to be enough to say “job done”.

Some have criticised us for being too complacent, for being satisfied with the status quo. Far from it. We were simply recognising reality.

Quite a lot has been written and said about the conference, its minor successes and the major failures to meet expectations. Here are some talking points that stand out for us. It’s time to look ahead.

Cynics circle as another WTO Ministerial Conference heads for small pickings

Given the challenging circumstances, system preservation may be the most important outcome

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED FEBRUARY 21, 2024 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 27, 2024

The cynics are circling the World Trade Organization’s upcoming Ministerial Conference with doom-laden prophecies that the “WTO” is likely to fail, again.

The cans that were kicked down the road in Geneva in 2022 are now supposed to produce content in Abu Dhabi in 2024. The prospects of that are sobering.

But the WTO is not just its Ministerial Conferences, and the purpose of these conferences is not merely concluding new agreements. Given the challenging circumstances, system preservation may be the most important outcome.

WTO members are slow to ratify the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement

It took 16 months to reach half-way, and 21 months to reach two thirds of the way. Speaks volumes for governments’ commitment to sustainability

IN A NUTSHELL
Ratifications of the June 2022 Fisheries Subsidies Agreement
May 6, 2024

Total ratifications = 73
(= 45% of all members, = 66% of the first target)
First target (two thirds of 164 members) = 110
Additional ratifications needed to reach two thirds = 37
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 7, 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
MARCH 18, 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, Laos, 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 (90)

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

How did the Ministerial Conference do? Our scorecards

There were a number of concrete results, which was a relief for many, but how significant are the outcomes?

By Robert Wolfe and Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 19, 2022 | UPDATED JUNE 19, 2022

In our curtain-raiser before the June 12–17 World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference — “Touch and go at the WTO. Is the director-general’s optimism justified?” — we suggested a set of score cards for assessing the result. Based on the actual outcome, we’ve adjusted the scorecards slightly and filled them in.

The scorecards are in this note. It includes an invitation to comment

Updates: none so far

Image credit:
Delegates on the terrace at the WTO headquarters, Geneva, night of June 15, 2022 | WTO

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is beta-small-30x30-square-transparent.png

Touch and go at the WTO. Is the director-general’s optimism justified?

The meaning of “success” is not the same for the Ministerial Conference’s organisers as it is for outsiders

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED JUNE 9, 2022 | UPDATED JUNE 12, 2022

How many times can a curtain go up and down? This is our second curtain-raiser for the World Trade Organization’s 12th Ministerial Conference, now rescheduled for June 12–15, 2022.

As we wrote when the meeting was postponed in late 2021, the WTO risks disappearing into a chasm of petty procedural wrangling over what to talk about, and how to move forward.

After delays in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic, and more recently the threat to multilateralism posed by Russia, the fact of it happening at all will be taken as a success. But have WTO members been able to move closer to significant agreement on anything?

This time our curtain-raiser proposes some benchmarks for assessment. There’s even a scorecard at the end for anyone following along at home.

Explainer: The 18 WTO plurilaterals and ‘joint-statement initiatives’

Brand new, decades old, or in between? Exclusive or applying to all members? Proper negotiations or just talk? Which is which, and what are the subjects?

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JANUARY 3, 2022 | UPDATED APRIL 13, 2024

As World Trade Organization (WTO) members struggle to reach consensus on numerous issues, many see talks among “the willing” as the way to modernise the organisation and in many cases to update its trade rules. But the approach is controversial.

These talks and resulting decisions among only some WTO members are called “plurilateral” to distinguish them from “multilateral” activities and agreements among the WTO’s whole membership.

WTO environment talks — official text with 70 members: China, US, Israel too

The post-Ministerial Conference “structured discussion” would only be among some members and would, follow a proposed timetable.

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED NOVEMBER 5, 2021 | UPDATED DECEMBER 12, 2021

On November 4, the US reportedly announced it was joining other World Trade Organization (WTO) members in calling for “structured discussions” on trade, environment and sustainability — a fortnight after China reportedly did the same (on October 22).

This was confirmed on November 15, when the participants released the text as a public statement for the November 30–December 3 WTO Ministerial conference. By then Israel had also joined, bringing total participants to 57 WTO members. On December 3 a revision was circulated adding 13 new participants bringing the total to 70, but with no change to the main content.

With so much attention being paid to environmental issues, not least during the fortnight of the UN Climate Change conference in Glasgow, agreeing on an innocuous text like this should be straightforward.

But it isn’t. Why? And why isn’t this automatically part of the work of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Committee?