WTO negotiations – Trade β Blog

WTO farm talks seek fresh thinking without losing everything

After the disaster at the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference, members’ views differ on how to restart, negotiate and agree by 2026

PREVIOUS STORIES
Seven talking points after the WTO’s 2024 Ministerial Conference
Chair’s draft pushes WTO farm talks deadlines back to next conference
‘Mission impossible’ and ‘mission essential’ collide in WTO farm talks
See also all stories on this topic (tagged “agriculture negotiations”)

Posted by Peter Ungphakorn
APRIL 21, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 21, 2024

Negotiators in the World Trade Organization’s farm talks broadly agree that a new approach is needed to revive the talks after they failed completely at the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference, but they differ on whether to tackle the entire subject or focus on priority areas.

On the table in the April 16, 2024 meeting was a proposal from Brazil for a decision by the General Council in July. This would effectively turn the scrapped draft from Abu Dhabi into a postponed decision, while removing the no longer available option of agreeing on over-the-limit subsidies in food stockpiling (“PSH”) at the Ministerial Conference.

The WTO’s General Council has the power to take decisions on behalf of its Ministerial Conferences.

In a separate process, WTO members also agreed on a non-binding document on food security, including export restrictions, also a binned agricultural text in Abu Dhabi.

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.

Setback for plurilateral approach as investment deal blocked again

The 128 participants will continue efforts to persuade India, South Africa and Türkiye that their deal can become an official WTO plurilateral agreement

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED MARCH 22, 2024 | UPDATED MARCH 23, 2024

India and South Africa, now joined by Türkiye, continued to block consensus on adding the 128-participant Investment Facilitation Agreement to the World Trade Organization’s rulebook when WTO members met as the General Council today (March 22, 2024).

The on-going resistance is a setback for the large number of countries that had hoped deals among only some of the WTO’s 164 members — known as “plurilateral” — could be a way to allow rule-making to develop among the willing without affecting others who are not ready.

Lack of consensus prevents “plurilateral” agreements from being part of the organisation’s official package of rules. That means WTO committees cannot be set up to oversee implementation and the agreements are not subject to legal proceedings under WTO dispute settlement.

Only three of the 36 non-participants have opposed adding this plurilateral agreement to the WTO’s rules. The US is a non-participant that has previously argued in favour.

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.

Minutes show how domestic regulation deal in services schedules resolved

The January 24, 2024 meeting shows how talks with 54 WTO members led South Africa and India to drop their objections to commitments incorporating the plurilateral services deal

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED MARCH 6, 2024 | UPDATED MARCH 6, 2024

More details have emerged explaining what happened in talks between some participants in the plurilateral agreement on services domestic regulation and objectors India and South Africa, leading to the objections being dropped.

The story is told in the minutes of the multilateral (WTO-wide) working party handling domestic regulation in services. The minutes are still restricted but will be public in a few months. A leaked copy is here.

They show that South Africa and India had already told WTO members they would drop their objections several weeks before their formal announcements.

Objections dropped on services regulation say nothing about other plurilaterals

Faced with the impossibility of going to arbitration, India and South Africa were forced to drop their objections. They did so for countries that had amended their proposed commitments

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 28, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 6, 2024

Most of the reports coming from the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi speak of the new plurilateral agreement on services regulation entering into force at the conference.

That was the line taken on the WTO website and in the participants’ press conference.

As a result, many media reports also used the term and missed crucial details about what was really going on, including the fact that it only applied to some participants in the deal.

Describing this as a new agreement “entering into force” is not wrong, but it is misleading.

India and South Africa have not dropped all their objections — a point that is missed in most of the reporting

What has happened is that participants in the new agreement on domestic regulation in services have attached the text of the agreement to their individual commitments (called “schedules”) in services, rather than to the general WTO rule-book.

This has avoided the need for WTO-wide consensus on adding to the rule-book an agreement among only part of the WTO’s membership, in the face of opposition from India and South Africa.

Even with this alternative route, India and South Africa still resisted. They raised objections about the proposed new schedules of commitments.

But here the rules are different. India and South Africa could not object forever. So they eventually dropped their objections on some of the schedules, which could then be certified, justifying the description of “entering into force”.

Plurilateral services commitments from 54 members certified, leaving 16 to go

India has joined South Africa in dropping its objections to some of the commitments incorporating the new plurilateral deal on domestic services regulation

(Original headline: “Plurilateral services commitments from 53 member certified, leaving 17 to go”.)

UPDATES April 5, 2024. The WTO Secretariat announced on April 4 that El Salvador’s revised services schedule had been certified because “the Secretariat has received no objections within 45 days as stipulated in the procedures”. The proposal was circulated on February 19, 2024.

In other words, India and South Africa never objected to El Salvador’s February 19 proposal, which seems to have gone straight to pasting in the domestic regulation disciplines, instead of linking to the reference paper. The following day, El Salvador circulated the supplement to its services schedule.

That meant 54 members’ schedules involving the plurilateral agreement had been certified, leaving 16 members’ schedules still uncertified (including the UK’s, facing post-Brexit objections from Russia). One more participant — Timor Leste — is not counted because it is still in the final stages of completing WTO membership.

March 28, 2024. South Africa dropped its objections to four more proposed revised schedules of commitments in services after they were corrected. We can assume that they continue the practice of pasting the new disciplines directly into the documents rather than simply link to the reference paper.

The four are from Albania, Canada, Georgia and South Korea, bringing the total of corrected documents so far to 31, from 58 members. (Chile’s was corrected twice; the UK’s is still uncertified because of post-Brexit Russian objections.)

India had not yet followed suit, so the four new corrected documents remain uncertified, and the certified total is unchanged

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 27, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 15, 2024

At the last-minute India has dropped its objections, allowing a plurilateral agreement on streamlining domestic services regulations to be fully legal in 53 World Trade Organization members.

India’s announcement, circulated on the first day of the WTO’s Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, follows South Africa’s almost two weeks ago

In a paper circulated on February 16, South Africa said it no longer objected to the 27 new commitments from 54 WTO members on services. India withdrew its objections on the same 27 revised lists (or “schedules”) of commitments in services.

This has allowed 26 revised schedules from 53 WTO members to be officially certified. One — from the UK — faces additional objections related to its departure from the EU (Brexit), but Britain said it would continue to apply the new disciplines anyway.

The schedules of another 17 participants in the domestic services regulation agreement have not been certified, apparently because they have not been amended to the satisfaction of India and South Africa.

Simply put: ‘PSH’, the biggest controversy in the WTO agriculture talks

The misleadingly-named “public stockholding” (“PSH”) could be more correctly called “(over-the-limit) Price support in food Stock-Holding”

SEE ALSO

In depth:
Behind the rhetoric: ‘Public stockholding for food security’ in the WTO
WTO fact sheet:
The Bali decision on stockholding for food security in developing countries
All stories on this topic (tagged “food stockholding”)

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 25, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 22, 2024

It almost wrecked the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference in Bali in 2013. It delayed by a year the final agreement on an entirely separate topic: trade facilitation. It caused agriculture to be dropped completely from the 2022 Ministerial Conference in Geneva, and for the second time in a row, at the 2024 Abu Dhabi conference.

The misleadingly-named “public stockholding” (“PSH”) is currently the most controversial subject in the WTO’s agricultural negotiations.

Those initial letters would more appropriately stand for “(over-the-limit) Price support in food Stock-Holding”.

CONTINUE READING or use these links to JUMP DOWN THE PAGE:

What’s it about? | What are the rules? | What else is demanded? | Who has breached its subsidy limit? | So how’s it going? | In a nutshell

TABLES AND DATA: Which countries have notified eligible programmes? | India’s notified breaches of domestic support limits for rice | Rice, shares of world exports

What’s it about?

It’s probably best to start with what it’s not about.

It’s not about food stockholding. There are no WTO rules against that.

Definitely. Maybe. Unlikely. Who knows? Issues on the WTO conference agenda

We’d better be prepared for little or nothing substantial when ministers meet in Abu Dhabi at the end of the month

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

Two large but stubborn members may prevent ministers from agreeing on anything important at the World Trade Organization’s upcoming Ministerial Conference, and so the cynics are circling with doom-laden prophecies that “the WTO” is likely to fail again.

One is India, which is demanding the impossible in agriculture and threatening to block several other issues supported by a majority of WTO members. The other is the US, which is also — but more quietly — defying a majority of members on appeals in WTO dispute settlement.

Between them, they could ensure that the February 26–29 meeting in Abu Dhabi becomes yet another where WTO trade ministers kick dozens of cans down the road.

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.